On Oct 1, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Mark Miller wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> 
>> Good point. If we can require all such assignments to be rejected statically, why is a runtime assignment to a const variable even possible? Can't we just assert that this cannot occur?
> 
> The runtime cases I meant are the ones you mentioned. Sloppy with or eval dynamically shadowing a sloppy a [[Set]] reference to a const binding.  Can't be a early error, should be a runtime error.
> 
> Although it is a bit late to suggest it ;) ...
> 
> Couldn't we have "with" and sloppy direct eval ignore/skip const and let bindings? Then these errors could always be early.

Actually we've already agreed that eval puts const/let/class bindings into a separate lexical scope.  But, an eval can still var shadow an outer const declaration.

Allen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141001/98d1da02/attachment.html>

Actually we've already agreed that eval puts const/let/class bindings into a separate lexical scope.  But, an eval can still var shadow an outer const declaration.