let function

[Michael Haufe]

As Perlis has said: too much syntactic sugar causes cancer of the
semicolon. IMO, this is not much of a win given what is now available,
especially with arrow functions and shorthand method definitions


On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:37 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150514/440d4d77/attachment.html>