`const` and/or `var`
satyr opened this issue · 11 comments
const
Performs a series of assignments and flags the variables as read-only.
const a = 0, b = 1
...
a = 2 # compile error
var
Avoids awakward a = b = void.
var a, b
const is a pretty awesome idea if it'll be compile time. 👍
Yes, assignment is horrible. But you won't be able to enforce this statically when the constants are members of the global scope. Is that an acceptable inconsistency?
when the constants are members of the global scope
Global variables are read-only already:
$ coco -e '++Math'
SyntaxError: increment of undeclared variable "Math" on line 1
$ node
> var a = 0
undefined
> this.a
0
> this.a = 1
1
> a
1
>
You can't statically catch those assignments.
You can't statically catch those assignments.
Don't have to.
this.ais not a variable.- Coco can't declare global variables (or pretends so in case of
--bare).
Exactly. When --bare is used, top-level "consts" are re-assignable through a reference to the global object. Are you willing to ignore that case? If I saw that a language had a "constant" feature, I would hope that it could guarantee that the value would never change, regardless of environmental factors like what flags were used when the program was compiled.
Are you willing to ignore that case?
Yes. --bare is for cases where the IIFE wrapper is redundant (like node modules) and never for creating globals.
That's reasonable.
@michaelficarra would you consider this (at least const) for coffee-redux?
@paulmillr: Absolutely not. The goal of CoffeeScriptRedux is to be feature-compatible with CoffeeScript, with no feature additions besides those listed on the kickstarter page. Once it reaches that state, I plan to fork it and add cool features (like const) that I've enumerated at coffee-of-my-dreams, many of which are already available in LiveScript.
ah, that's even cooler. then it will be truly drop-in replace. nice to hear.