erik.arvidsson at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 10:52:53 UTC 2015
Traceur does not give any history on this but I also remember having this
discussion in a f2f meeting. It was all about "js has always been mutable,
lets not change that. If you want immutability you have it with `const f =
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:51 AM Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
> 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