let function

[Andrea Giammarchi]

not, in fact, in a backward compatible way, unless transpiled.

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Domenic Denicola <d at domenic.me> wrote:

>  They can, in fact, be scoped in a for loop.
>
>
>
> *From:* es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrea
> Giammarchi
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 14:53
> *To:* Kevin Smith
> *Cc:* es-discuss at mozilla.org
> *Subject:* Re: let function
>
>
>
> I guess 'cause that cannot be scoped, let's say in a for loop ... but
> yeah, I think that's not the most needed thing in the language right now,
> yet another shortcut with double reserved words one after the other
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Why not use a function declaration instead?
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:37 PM Alexander Jones <alex at weej.com> wrote:
>
>  Propose adding support for
>
>
>
>     let function foo() {};
>
>
>
> which would have the equivalence of:
>
>
>
>     let foo = function foo() {};
>
>
>
> The idea is to support the normal scoping of let, but without forcing you
> to repeat yourself when naming the function, whilst still having the
> function's name property be set.
>
>
>
> This would trivially extend to const and var. Also, possibly class.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150514/3f6614d4/attachment.html>