Use of redundant var

Fergus Cooney f.cooney at
Sat Aug 23 08:23:07 PDT 2008

Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Fergus Cooney <f.cooney at>
> wrote:
>> I'm also in favour of multiple, "redundant" vars. I use them
>> semantically and as a discipline.
>>    if (something)
>>        {
>>        var x = 1;
>>        :  :  :
>>        }
>>    else
>>        {
>>        var x = 2;
>>        :  :  :
>>        }
>> When I write the above pattern you won't see x being used outside
>> those inner blocks. The two vars are my way of saying that they are
>> independant 'x's, although the same name would be being used because
>> they have the same meaning.
> Okay, but this suggests that if you had 'let' you wouldn't use
> redundant declarations.
> Or, to put it another way, you only use redundant declarations because
> the language lacks block scoping.  I don't think this makes you a
> champion of redundant declarations.
> -Jon

Lol, that's true. "Champion" is too strong a word. "Supporter" is better.

Another use I have for redeclaring variables is when I want to reuse the
name but there's a clear separation between the previous use and the new
use. For example, I might have a variable to amass a bunch of html snippets
and then stick them in a div. I'll redeclare that variable again if I'm
doing separate content for another div. It makes it explicit that there's no
carry-over from above. Also, as I'm the declare-everything-first type, it
also helps if I decide rearrange the code.


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list