I think that would fail as well, because the let would be shadowing the
global x, which isn't allowed.
On Sep 18, 2015 2:25 PM, "Neil" wrote:
> Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>
> Good catch and thanks for the correction! The take-home from the example is
>> that: due to the global lexical scope, a TDZ error c
On 17/09/15 19:59, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
> Because until now, our global 'let' semantics have been identical to
> those of 'var', I have already landed a patch that mass replaces global
> 'let' with 'var' as part of bug 1202902.
I think someone should make you a "var is the new let" t-shirt...
Gerv
Shu-yu Guo wrote:
Good catch and thanks for the correction! The take-home from the example is
that: due to the global lexical scope, a TDZ error could arise later due to
newly introduced bindings.
So for that I guess the code would have to look like this?
var x;
function f() { dump(x); }
f()
Good catch and thanks for the correction! The take-home from the example is
that: due to the global lexical scope, a TDZ error could arise later due to
newly introduced bindings.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/17/15 8:26 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>
>> The first call to
On 9/17/15 8:26 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
The first call to f() does not throw.
It actually does, because the bareword lookup for "x" fails. You get
"ReferenceError: x is not defined".
If you replaced "x" with "window.x" or "self.x" or "this.x" or something
I think you'd get the behavior you
(Isn't that bananas, by the way?)
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Neil wrote:
>
>> Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>>
>> 4. The global lexical scope is extensible. This means dynamic scope
>>> (lol!):
>>>
>>>
>>> function f() { dump(x); }
>>> f(); // pri
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Neil wrote:
> Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>
> 4. The global lexical scope is extensible. This means dynamic scope (lol!):
>>
>>
>> function f() { dump(x); }
>> f(); // prints undefined
>>
>>
>>
>> let x = 42;
>> f(); // prints 42
>>
>>
>> Would you mind clarifying wh
Shu-yu Guo wrote:
4. The global lexical scope is extensible. This means dynamic scope (lol!):
function f() { dump(x); }
f(); // prints undefined
let x = 42;
f(); // prints 42
Would you mind clarifying what this is supposed to demonstrate? It looks
to me that this is demonstrating TDZ
Hello all,
We are in the process of implementing the global lexical scope per ES6.
This changes the semantics of global level 'let' and 'const' bindings from
our non-standard semantics to standard semantics.
Currently, global 'let' and 'const' bindings introduce properties onto the
global objec
9 matches
Mail list logo
