lexical for-in/for-of loose end

[Allen Wirfs-Brock]

On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:19 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:

> 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)?

sounds good to me, see other message



> 
> /be
>