domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-01-14T17:41:42.161Z)
On 7 January 2014 20:44, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> Unless we can identify real implementation issues, the semantics of
>
> ```js
> do { }
> ```
>
> should simply be those of a blocks.
I don't think this flies anyway. It has to be more like a function
body, otherwise `var` and `function` declarations would hoist out of it,
which would be insane IMO.
What I'm arguing for, then, simply is to make it as much like a
function body as possible. (That also matches the current IIFE
practice best.)
Also, I really would want to avoid examples like
```js
return do { break; }
```
and similar craze.
Is there a convincing example where cross-expression jumps would
actually be useful?
On 7 January 2014 20:44, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > Unless we can identify real implementation issues, the semantics of > do { } > > should simply be those of a blocks. I don't think this flies anyway. It has to be more like a function body, otherwise var and function declarations would hoist out of it, which would be insane IMO. What I'm arguing for, then, simply is to make it as much like a function body as possible. (That also matches the current IIFE practice best.) Also, I really would want to avoid examples like return do { break; } and similar craze. Is there a convincing example where cross-expression jumps would actually be useful? /Andreas