rossberg at google.com
Thu Mar 5 08:50:38 UTC 2015
On 5 March 2015 at 04:57, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> This is novel weirdness.
>> In C++/Java/C# etc. you don't see it because the corresponding
>> declarations create immutable bindings. I agree that it would have been
>> nice of we could have done that.
> Why could we not have?
> I asked this up-thread. What was the rationale for let not const binding
> via class declarations? I honestly do not remember us considering const.
> Did we just "default" into let because of the historical (var) default
> binding form being mutable? If so, is it really too late?
I seem to remember a (brief) discussion about this, where the main argument
for mutable was that it was "natural" for JS. Allen probably remembers more
of the details.
It would be totally awesome if we could still correct this.
> Cc'ing Arv in case he can check via Traceur telemetry whether anyone
> counts on let-not-const from class.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss