let function

[Kevin Smith]

>
> 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...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150519/c279ac18/attachment-0001.html>