Expected function parameter scoping behavioor

[Logan Smyth]

Perfect, thanks Allen, now I see the part that I was misreading. I didn't
recognize that the only bindings that would be recreated and shadowed in
the new environment were those that had explicitly been redeclared in the
body, I was thinking `varNames` included the parameter names, which is
clearly wrong. So in my examples, the addition of a `var arg;` into the
function body, causes the behavior I was referencing. That's an interesting
edge case.

Thanks!

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
wrote:

> You misunderstand.  The two scope design is all about preventing closures
> from referencing variables declared within the body of the functions.  See
> https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-
> 09/default-arguments.pdf for the motivation for this design. (but be
> aware that there are probably some subtle differences between the final
> specified design and what this deck describes.
>
> In you to test cases, `arg` is not declared within the body of `fn` so
> there is no duplicate binding for it.  Things would be different if you had
> a `var` or `function` declaration for `arg` within the body.
>
> Allen
>
> On May 9, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Logan Smyth <loganfsmyth at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
> We're currently exploring some changes to Babel's behavior for function
> parameter default scoping, and I was hoping to validate my understanding of
> the spec, because my reading of the spec does not conform to Chrome or FF's
> behavior. Alternatively if you know bugs for those engines for this, let me
> know.
>
> My understanding from https://tc39.github.io/ec
> ma262/#sec-functiondeclarationinstantiation step #27 is that if function
> parameters contain any expressions, the function body is shifted to run in
> a declarative environment separately from the params. Per #27.f.i.4.a, the
> initial values of the params are copied from from the param environment
> into the function body environment, at initial execution time.
>
> Given that, I'd expect cases such as
> ```
> (function fn(arg, setValue = function () { arg = "a string" }) {
>   setValue();
>
>   return arg;
> })("initial")
> ```
> to return `initial`, because the `arg` binding being mutated by `setValue`
> is not tied to the `arg` binding that the function returns, as the
> `"initial"` value would have been copied into the function body binding
> before `setValue` ran.
>
> Is my understanding there correct?
>
> Similarly I'd have expected
> ```
> (function fn(arg, getValue = function () { return arg; }) {
>
>   arg = "new value";
>
>   return getValue();
> })("initial")
> ```
>
> to return `"initial"` because it is returning the binding value from the
> declarative environment in the function params and accessed by `getValue`
> is not the same environment being mutated by the assignment to `arg1`.
>
> Is my understanding correct, or is there something I'm misunderstanding?
>
> 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/20170509/c38761e6/attachment-0001.html>