Skip to content

/ esprima

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

ES6 feature: Let and Const Declaration #1065

Closed
ariya opened this issue Feb 18, 2015 · 10 comments
Closed

ES6 feature: Let and Const Declaration #1065

ariya opened this issue Feb 18, 2015 · 10 comments
Assignees
@ariya
Labels
es6
Milestone
2.1

Comments

@ariya
Copy link
Contributor

@ariya ariya commented Feb 18, 2015

Syntax:

Per Rev 32 (Feb 2, 2015) of the draft spec, the relevant grammar is on Section 13.2.1 on Let and Const Declarations:

LexicalDeclaration[In, Yield] :
  LetOrConst BindingList[?In, ?Yield] ;

LetOrConst :
  let
  const

BindingList[In, Yield] :
  LexicalBinding[?In, ?Yield]
  BindingList[?In, ?Yield] , LexicalBinding[?In, ?Yield]

LexicalBinding[In, Yield] :
  BindingIdentifier[?Yield] Initializer[?In, ?Yield]opt
  BindingPattern[?Yield] Initializer[?In, ?Yield]

Referred to by:

Declaration:

Declaration[Yield] :
  HoistableDeclaration _[?Yield]
  ClassDeclaration[?Yield]
  LexicalDeclaration[In, ?Yield]

StatementListItem:

StatementListItem[Yield, Return] :
  Statement[?Yield, ?Return]
  Declaration[?Yield]

Iteration:

for ( LexicalDeclaration[?Yield] Expression[In, ?Yield]opt ; Expression[In, ?Yield]opt ) Statement[?Yield, ?Return]
for ( ForDeclaration[?Yield] in Expression[In, ?Yield] ) Statement[?Yield, ?Return]

whereas:

ForDeclaration[Yield] :
  LetOrConst ForBinding[?Yield]

ForBinding[Yield] :
  BindingIdentifier[?Yield]
  BindingPattern[?Yield]

Early errors:

  • const without initializer: const x; (from Esprima 1.x)
  • for-in with multiple let identifiers: for (let x,y in z){}
  • for-in with multiple const identifiers: for (const x,y in z){}
  • for-in with let initializer: for (let i = 1 in x){}
  • for-in with const initializer: for (const i = 1 in x){}
    • More TBD

Spec:

13.2.1 Let and Const Declarations.

Relevant AST interfaces (from https://github.com/estree/estree):

interface VariableDeclaration <: Declaration {
    type: "VariableDeclaration";
    declarations: [ VariableDeclarator ];
    kind: "var";
}
extend interface VariableDeclaration {
    kind: "var" | "let" | "const";
}

See also

Note that V8 doesn't yet support various early errors for lexical declarations. In the mean time, we may need to use the generic Unexpected token... message for such an error.
@ariya
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ariya ariya commented Feb 18, 2015

Note that Esprima is always able to parse let and const hitherto (as variable declaration). However, it does not yet have the formalized lexical declaration. Thus, implementing this feature finally allows const to be used in other places (switch case, etc).
@ariya ariya self-assigned this Feb 18, 2015
@ariya ariya added this to the 2.1 milestone Feb 18, 2015
ariya added a commit to ariya/esprima that referenced this issue Feb 19, 2015
@ariya
Support for ES6 lexical declaration in switch statement.
f951699 
Refs jquery#1065.
@ariya ariya mentioned this issue Feb 19, 2015
Closed
ariya added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 20, 2015
@ariya
Support for ES6 lexical declaration in switch statement.
Loading status checks…
74bfd2c 
Refs #1065.
Closes #1070.
@ariya ariya added the es6 label Feb 20, 2015
@ariya
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ariya ariya commented Feb 21, 2015

@ikarienator Just to confirm, there is also this grammar:

for ( [lookahead ∉ {let [}] LeftHandSideExpression[?Yield] in Expression[In, ?Yield] ) Statement[?Yield, ?Return]

Does this mean that the code like for (let i in [1, 2, 3]){} is not valid?
@ikarienator
Copy link
Contributor

@ikarienator ikarienator commented Feb 21, 2015

That example is valid but does not fall into that production. It falls into:

for ( ForDeclaration[?Yield] in Expression[In, ?Yield] ) Statement[?Yield, ?Return]

The lookahead is for disambiguous.
Note that the lookahead is actually of two tokens let and [.
@ariya
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ariya ariya commented Feb 21, 2015

Ah you're right. And technically it's not even a LexicalDeclaration because ForDeclaration only permits one binding, not multiple.
ariya added a commit to ariya/esprima that referenced this issue Feb 22, 2015
@ariya
Formalize lexical declaration.
ef882ce 
This is mostly renaming so that the terms are aligned with the spec:
  ConstLetDeclaration -> LexicalDeclaration
  SourceElement -> StatementListItem
  sourceElement -> statement, sourceElements -> body

Refs jquery#1065
ariya added a commit to ariya/esprima that referenced this issue Feb 22, 2015
@ariya
Handle ForStatement and ForInStatement with lexical declaration.
dae6e7d 
Also, to make it explicit, constructing a lexical declaration (const or
let) is separated from the common variable declaration (var).

Refs jquery#1065
@ariya
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ariya ariya commented Feb 22, 2015

How about for (const i in x) {}? Not sure how valid it should be, using the const there is a bit unnatural.
@ikarienator
Copy link
Contributor

@ikarienator ikarienator commented Feb 22, 2015

Weirdly enough, it is allowed. The semantics is that it can only be assigned once. I think the spec should clarify it more on in what occasion it could be used. https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-for-statement-runtime-semantics-labelledevaluation
@ariya
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ariya ariya commented Feb 22, 2015

Weirdly enough, it is allowed.

Let's keep it invalid for now, until there is a better clarification.

Now with that, please review this PR #1076 @ikarienator 😉
@michaelficarra
Copy link
Contributor

@michaelficarra michaelficarra commented Feb 22, 2015

No clarification needed. It should definitely be allowed.
@ikarienator
Copy link
Contributor

@ikarienator ikarienator commented Feb 22, 2015

I meant the clarification on the use case. The definition is clear.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:28 Michael Ficarra notifications@github.com
wrote:

No classification needed. It should definitely be allowed.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1065 (comment).
ariya added a commit to ariya/esprima that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2015
@ariya
Allow lexical declaration with const in a ForInStatement.
9a62208 
Refs jquery#1065
ariya added a commit to ariya/esprima that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2015
@ariya
Formalize lexical declaration.
4daf714 
This is mostly renaming so that the terms are aligned with the spec:
  ConstLetDeclaration -> LexicalDeclaration
  SourceElement -> StatementListItem
  sourceElement -> statement, sourceElements -> body

Refs jquery#1065
ariya added a commit to ariya/esprima that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2015
@ariya
Handle ForStatement and ForInStatement with lexical declaration.
b6bb1c6 
Also, to make it explicit, constructing a lexical declaration (const or
let) is separated from the common variable declaration (var).

Refs jquery#1065
ariya added a commit to ariya/esprima that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2015
@ariya
Allow lexical declaration with const in a ForInStatement.
8f30085 
Refs jquery#1065
ariya added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2015
@ariya
Allow lexical declaration with const in a ForInStatement.
Loading status checks…
cbc0586 
Refs #1065
Closes #1076
ariya added a commit to ariya/esprima that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2015
@ariya
Have let and const with initializer trigger a syntax error.
d1a8fec 
Refs jquery#1065
@ariya ariya mentioned this issue Mar 5, 2015
Closed
ariya added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2015
@ariya
Have let and const with initializer trigger a syntax error.
Loading status checks…
77a33fc 
Refs #1065
Closes gh-1092
@ariya
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ariya ariya commented Mar 5, 2015

Tasks in this ticket have been implemented. Further enhancements and more early errors will be filed separately.
@ariya ariya closed this Mar 5, 2015
@mikesherov mikesherov mentioned this issue Mar 7, 2015
Closed
25 of 25 tasks complete
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@ariya ariya

Labels
es6
Projects
None yet
Milestone
2.1
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
@ariya @michaelficarra @ikarienator
You can’t perform that action at this time.