Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Tue May 19 22:09:57 UTC 2015
Yes. I proposed it and plan to do so again. Likewise with const classes. In
both cases, it imposes additional tamper-proofing restrictions along the
lines of the StrongScript proposal in order to support writing defensively
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss