return when desugaring to closures

David-Sarah Hopwood david.hopwood at industrial-designers.co.uk
Tue Oct 21 17:56:51 PDT 2008


Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Waldemar Horwat <waldemar at google.com> wrote:
>> What does ES3.1 do if you have both const x and var x at the top level?
> 
> It just so happens that we discussed top level const in this morning's
> ES3.1 phone meeting. It never occurred to us to ban top level const.
> We did discuss making top level const scoped just to the program unit
> vs adding a property to the global object. We also discussed the const
> read barrier issue. Of your taxonomy of four choices, we had been
> writing the spec on the assumption of dynamic dead zone, but we think
> we would prefer static dead zone if its spec is simple enough and if
> it's simple enough to understand in practice. Given the number of
> choices and the complexity of choosing among them, especially our
> ignorance of the implications of "static dead zone", we decided to
> pull "const" from ES3.1.

I understand the implications of "static dead zone"; I just worked
through them for Jacaranda 0.4. It is definitely possible to guarantee
static initialization safety for 'let' and 'const' declarations, checkable
using a simple and efficient algorithm (linear in the size of the block),
and without any read or write barriers. The resulting function hoisting
behaviour is a fairly simple generalization of ES3. I'll post a
fleshed-out proposal either tomorrow or Thursday.

> If we got in wrong in ES3.1, we couldn't fix it later.

That's true, but I still hope to convince you and the group that we can
get it right for ES3.1.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list