Proposal: opt-out local scoping

Erik Arvidsson erik.arvidsson at
Thu Aug 28 09:44:37 PDT 2008

I hope we can still have "global" in Harmony.  It is ugly to have to do:

const global = this;

and rely on that no one moves that code into a closure with a different "this".

Dave,  I really like the lexical scope proposal.  However,  I do find
the sections regarding the global a bit confusing.  Are the following
assumptions correct?

this.print = function(s) { ... };

  use lexical scope;


On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 06:22, P T Withington <ptw at> wrote:
> On 2008-08-28, at 09:09EDT, Dave Herman wrote:
>> As for free references, what can you do with a free variable? If you
>> mean you want a way to look something up in the global object, then
>> use `' or `this[expr]' (or `let global = this' followed by
>> It might be nice to have a standard library (called `global' or
>> something) that's bound to the global object so you can have a less
>> fragile binding to the global object than `this'.
> Exactly.  I think it would be worthwhile to have a standard way to
> refer to the global object.
> _______________________________________________
> Es-discuss mailing list
> Es-discuss at

More information about the Es-discuss mailing list