const formal parameters?

[Brendan Eich]

On Jun 19, 2008, at 8:17 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> So long as it parses, that would allow code to version sniff and
> adapt, with conditionals, to different execution environments. That's
> why we're using the "parses on 3/4 browsers" criterion. (Thanks
> Maciej, I think)

"Adapt" means "do without" on Opera, in this case. But IE is out  
already, so I guess the user-agent sniffing should put Opera in the  
same no-const branch that IE gets.


>> This again makes me ask: what's the plan for getting
>> "alpha" implementations of ES3.1 interoperating before the  
>> standard is
>> pushed through Ecma to ISO?
>
> I don't know if the ES3.1 WG has discussed how to get to ISO. I've
> only participated in discussions re an Ecma std, for which we're
> planning to leverage the ES4 RI. What would you suggest for ISO?

Ecma specs go to ISO via the JTC1 fast-track process, mostly  
polishing and picking nits. The time to get implementor and user  
feedback is before Ecma stamps the standard as "done". This was  
obviously the case for ES1, and ES2 followed implementations adopting  
features such as do-while and switch. ES3 had some innovations beyond  
what implementations had already supported -- some of these did not  
work so well while others were ignored by vendors of already-shipped  
code.


> I certainly appreciate the sentiment, and I agree on this case. It
> just seems weird to be able to declare local variables const but not
> be able to declare parameter variables const. Oh well, it's not the
> weirdest thing that we've decided to live with.

const parameters are supported in ES4, FWIW.

/be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20080619/3d569f9c/attachment-0002.html