3 ms·

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 Coffe

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 14y ago
> 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 14y ago
  Well, it can have both...
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Example? Can you write Lisp like this? Function for(){ f(x); var x = 2; } Compiles and runs with f(undefined)