brendan at mozilla.org
Wed May 20 00:22:34 UTC 2015
Your point about decorators vs. hoisting is good, everyone should keep
it in mind. Still doesn't mean we can't add a special form for const
function, as followups aver.
Alexander Jones wrote:
> On 19 May 2015 at 02:02, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org
> <mailto:brendan at mozilla.org>> wrote:
> This seems like a better shorthand to discuss, compared to `let
> function` (which function-in-block covers already, as noted).
> 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, and it has no provisions for
> const binding, i.e. "const function".
> let f(x) => y
> appears attractive indeed, but by virtue of it being an arrow
> function, has lexical this and no prototype property. Also no
> generator syntax, unless I'm missing something?
More information about the es-discuss