Discuss
  • Question on arrow function - if it is a bug or intentional in the spec ?

Question on arrow function - if it is a bug or intentional in the spec ?

# Suresh Jayabalan (12 years ago)

According to 14.2.1, the following arrow function expression should produce an early error :

x => {var x;}

Here is the spec line that mandates this rule. While this scenario is allowed in the regular functions (even in strict mode), I would like to understand the rationale behind this specific rule in arrow functions. Can someone shed some light on this ?

ArrowFunction : ArrowParameters => ConciseBody

* It is a Syntax Error if any element of the BoundNames of ArrowParameters also occurs in theVarDeclaredNames of ConciseBody.

* It is a Syntax Error if any element of the BoundNames of ArrowParameters also occurs in the LexicallyDeclaredNames of ConciseBody.
# Allen Wirfs-Brock (12 years ago)

The basic idea was that the parameters and body scope of a function are treated as a single "name space" where duplicate definitions are not allowed. Except that multiple var (and function) definitions are not considered duplicate definitions. For example:

function () {
   let x;
   var x;  //illegal redefinition
}

function (x) {
   let x;  //illegal redefinition
}

function () {
   var x;
   var x;// allowed
}

function (x) {
   var x; //allowed
}

Regular function formal parameter bindings are considered to be var-like and hence only the LexciallyDeclaredNames (let-like) restriction applies to them. The VarDeclaredNames restriction is there for ArrayParameters based upopn the understanding that they were going to be considered let-like declarations.

But, this might all change as we try to get final consensus on parameter scoping and ArrayParameter semantics