Can `let`, `static` and `yield` still be used as Identifier?

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Wed Dec 31 13:36:46 PST 2014


On Wed Dec 31 2014 at 2:45:57 PM Alex Kocharin <alex at kocharin.ru> wrote:

>
> Firefox does parse `let=1` as illegal,
>

Under what circumstance? All of these function according to the spec:

  let = 1;
  console.log(let); // 1

  var let = 1;
  console.log(let); // 1

  let let = 1; // SyntaxError

(http://jsfiddle.net/rwaldron/L5kbtup6/)

 Rick


>
>
> 29.12.2014, 17:39, "Erik Arvidsson" <erik.arvidsson at gmail.com>:
>
> This is a bug in Traceur.
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014, 11:35 Gary Guo <nbdd0121 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> From the specification I saw `yield` is being explicitly declared as an
> possible Identifier in non-strict mode, and there `let`, `static` are
> parsed as identifier first. However, I did not see anyway to distinguish
> `let` identifier and `let` keyword. `let=1` is parsed as illegal in
> traceur, and so does `static=1`. Is this a bug of traceur or it is
> intended? It would be incompatible in non-strict mode if this is intended.
> (And if this is intended, there will be no reason for keep `let` and
> `static` non-reserved-word during lex stage)
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141231/e585049e/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list