|
|
|
|
|
|
by umurkontaci
4181 days ago
|
|
|
I understand, but I believe this still happens only within the lexical scope where the variable has been defined with let. TBH, It doesn't bother me at all. I think I can even go ahead and say the latter makes much more sense. Using the former one is abusing the weaknesses of the language that has come along with it throughout its history. We have been whining about the bad parts of JavaScript for a long, long time and I think these changes are for the better for all of us. |
|
|
Doesn't let itself introduce a new, implicit, scope? Here it seems let acts on things outside its own scope, which seems at least ugly.