zenparsing at gmail.com
Tue May 19 22:02:40 UTC 2015
> function-in-block does not have the same semantics as the proposed "let
> function". It hoists, thus has no TDZ, and appears to preclude a reasonable
> decorator syntax behaviour,
But that would not fix the decorator/function problem. Specifically, we
would not want to have a situation where "let" functions are decorable but
function declarations are not.
> and it has no provisions for const binding, i.e. "const function".
A "const function" syntax was proposed during ES6 development and might
still be an option.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss