w/ const, at least we can say "it's not reassigned, not sure about mutations though". With let, you know neither. Seems uncontroversial 
-
-
people are hostage to mutable default binding spec which cannot change -- suggests better path, esp for =>.
-
I remember in my earliest TC39 days asking if new function forms could be const params
-
Nobody liked the "micro modes" but we kind of ended up with them anyway so ehhhh.
-
micromodes involved implicit strict body from one param new syntax opt in; we did go there for v8.
-
micromodes meant invisible strict based on knowledge of which version of JS syntax came from
-
function x(...y) { /* strict because ...y added in ES2015 */ }
-
right - not invisible!
-
semantics based on which version of JS a feature was added bad as
@domenic forcefully argued in SF - 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think people are willing to endure the length, but it's certainly unfortunate still
@BrendanEich@ryanflorence -
we're not gonna get `(mut x) => { x = Boolean(x); ... }` unfortunately
-
right, sad but true. Mayhaps `(!x) => { ... } `, though (vs "const x")
@BrendanEich@ryanflorence -
that reads way too casually as expression `not x`, especially in arrows
-
ok sure,
@BrendanEich suggested "=" -- just suggesting "sigil token" vs keyword@ryanflorence -
(*x) => ..., (%x) => ..., (^x) => ..., so many options!
@BrendanEich@ryanflorence -
All terrible, tasteless/! You want to connote SSA/ANF.
-
yea, none imply SSA any more than the other to me -- so I'm happy with = if you prefer it stringy
@wycats@ryanflorence - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.