[Xcelerate]

I'm not sure function level scope over block level is a bad thing. It makes it more Lisp-y. And if you want block level scope, it's about as easy as (in CoffeeScript):

    do ->
        ... local variables right here ...

[munificent]

> I'm not sure function level scope over block level is a bad thing. It makes it more Lisp-y.

Lisp has block scope.

[Xcelerate]

Well, it can have both...

[Evbn]

Example?

Can you write Lisp like this?

Function for(){ f(x); var x = 2; }

Compiles and runs with f(undefined)