On 4 December 2013 11:03, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Olov did write "because val leaks to the outer scope". That's a reason for
> the convenience of
>
> if (let x = ...) { /* x in scope here */ }
>
> (or const), vs.
>
> { let x = ...; if (x) { /* ... */ } }
>
> Braces count, this is winning in C++.
Yes, see the last sentence of my reply. What I (and presumably Axel)
was puzzled about is why Olov said that he was forced to use 'let'
instead of 'const'.
/Andreas
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-12-10T01:44:42.256Z)
Yes, see the last sentence of my reply. What I (and presumably Axel)
was puzzled about is why Olov said that he was forced to use 'let'
instead of 'const'.
On 4 December 2013 11:03, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote: > Olov did write "because val leaks to the outer scope". That's a reason for > the convenience of > > if (let x = ...) { /* x in scope here */ } > > (or const), vs. > > { let x = ...; if (x) { /* ... */ } } > > Braces count, this is winning in C++. Yes, see the last sentence of my reply. What I (and presumably Axel) was puzzled about is why Olov said that he was forced to use 'let' instead of 'const'. /Andreas