Re^4: Closures and scope of lexicals

I was referring to his first example which prints 123

That's more complicated to achieve in Python IMHO.

I think JS had a similar effect with var , that's why let was introduced

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^4: Closures and scope of lexicals Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:35 UTC
I didn't translate the first snippet. The question is about the second snippet. The OP asked if its behaviour is a quirk. I showed that it's not by showing that the behaviour is consistent across many languages.	[reply]
Re^6: Closures and scope of lexicals by LanX (Saint) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:37 UTC
And I added that the consistency isn't 1to1 Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^7: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:39 UTC
Then you're wrong. The provided code is equivalent to the OP's, and the result is consistent.	[reply]
Re^8: Closures and scope of lexicals by LanX (Saint) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:42 UTC
Re^9: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:50 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^5: Closures and scope of lexicals by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2024 at 14:38 UTC
Yes, JS's `var` is function-scoped at the narrowest. It's even retroactive such that `foo = 1; var foo;` [download] is equivalent to `var foo; foo = 1;` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]