Yup. Consider

const foo = x();

where x happens to have the original value of Symbol.

Or

const foo = Symbol()

where Symbol is not bound to the original value of Symbol.






On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:

> One difference is that functions are syntax - I don't believe `var foo =
> new Function();` will have a "name" property inferred. Because `Symbol` is
> an identifier that has to be looked up on the global object, might there be
> difficulty inferring what the name should be?
>
> Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the subject will confirm or
> correct my belief and my question :-)
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <rauschma at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I love how ES6 automatically gives anonymous function definitions names
>> (via the variables they are assigned to etc.). Wouldn’t the same make sense
>> for symbols?
>>
>> Hypothetical example:
>>
>> ```js
>> const foo = Symbol();
>> console.log(Symbol('foo').toString()); // Symbol(foo)
>> ```
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
>> axel at rauschma.de
>> rauschma.de
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160106/f4a1b4a5/attachment.html>

Yup. Consider

```js
const foo = x();
```

where `x` happens to have the original value of `Symbol`.

Or

```js
const foo = Symbol()
```

where `Symbol` is not bound to the original value of `Symbol`.