lexical for-in/for-of loose end
brendan at mozilla.org
Wed Feb 1 19:19:06 PST 2012
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> water under the bridge...
Sure, but it matters for distinguishing my "inconsistent" advocacy of
removing the hated initialiser, vs. keeping destructuring in for-in LHS.
Really, I'm ok with not supporting destructuring for-in LHS. That will
require more spec work, but so does killing the initialiser for let and
const as you noted. So, are we agreed? No initialiser, no for-in
destructuring (with or without a declaring keyword)?
More information about the es-discuss