Lexical variable declarations (`let`, `const`) unusable in repl if error thrown during declaration/first assignment

[polybuildr]

• Version: v.6.3.1
• Platform: Linux (Ubuntu 14.04)
• Subsystem: repl (I think)

let s = Set();

gives TypeError: Constructor Set requires 'new'.

However, after this:

s

gives ReferenceError: s is not defined

and

let s = new Set();

gives TypeError: Identifier 's' has already been declared.

I'm not sure whether this is a real bug or it's expected behaviour, but it sure does seem unusual that s becomes unusable from this point in in the repl.

This isn't a problem when running node on a js file because the TypeError simply terminates execution.

[vsemozhetbyt]

Different with var:

> var  s = Set();
TypeError: Constructor Set requires 'new'
> s
undefined
> var  s = new Set();
undefined
> s
Set {}

[polybuildr]

Yep, works fine with var.

[vkurchatkin]

Here is simplified test case:

var vm = require('vm');

try {
  vm.runInThisContext('let x = f');
} catch (e) {}

vm.runInThisContext('x = 1');

[addaleax]

This is very déjà-vu-ish to me, although I can’t find another issue for this bug… /cc @nodejs/v8?

[polybuildr]

This error also occurs in the Chrome browser, so it's probably a v8 thing and not a Node thing. Sorry for reporting it in the wrong place.

[polybuildr]

Where should I report this considering that it's not specific to node's repl?

[Fishrock123]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was how the spec worked.

In general, you'll have a better time using var for variables in the repl.

[bnoordhuis]

@polybuildr You can report it over at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/list. It looks spec compliant to me (the binding for s is never fully constructed and stays in the TDZ) but perhaps the error messages can be improved.

[Slayer95]

This is per spec: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/take-let-variable-out-of-temporal-dead-zone

[polybuildr]

@bnoordhuis, @Slayer95, it does look spec-compliant, so I'm going to close this issue. However, that esdiscuss topic pointed me to something interesting that the Firefox Devtools console does and might be worth a shot.

For any such unresolved bindings (at least in the DevTools), Firefox steps in and turns them into undefined. So a redeclaration with let doesn't work, but simply s = 5 works from that point on. If anyone would like to consider doing this for the repl, feel free to reopen the issue.

[MasterJames]

Not working all variations

> rangeArray = nj.arange(6,12)
ReferenceError: rangeArray is not defined
> rangeArray = new nj.arange(6,12)
ReferenceError: rangeArray is not defined
> var rangeArray = new nj.arange(6,12)
SyntaxError: Identifier 'rangeArray' has already been declared
> let rangeArray = new nj.arange(6,12)
SyntaxError: Identifier 'rangeArray' has already been declared
> let rangeArray = nj.arange(6,12)
SyntaxError: Identifier 'rangeArray' has already been declared
> var rangeArray = nj.arange(6,12)
SyntaxError: Identifier 'rangeArray' has already been declared

[gireeshpunathil]

re-opening, per https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/32288#issuecomment-599270508, https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/32288#issuecomment-599300785 and https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/32288#issuecomment-599333938

[devsnek]

This is fixable pending migration to v8 repl mode pending v8:10539

[devsnek]

Just trying to make this more searchable :innocent:

[TheRamann]

Wait, 5 year old issues are still open? 😨

[TiraO]

+1 this behavior is unpleasant. After making a typo, the only way to proceed is to start over if e.g. you were setting up to paste in a line of code.

[mcollina]

This is fixable pending migration to v8 repl mode pending v8:10539

@devsnek is this still blocked by that issue? It was closed as wontfix.

[devsnek]

@mcollina yeah we could implement repl using runtime.evaluate now, just no one has gotten around to it.

[ShogunPanda]

@devsnek So this is a full reimplementation of the repl?

[devsnek]

I don't think it requires complete reimplementation but it will definitely require some work

[ShogunPanda]

I see.

Once I get some bandwidth I might take a look at this. This looks like and interesting challenge.

[gregfenton]

nudge

[ankit142]

Use the new keyword when creating a new Set instance:

let s = new Set();
s.add("OldestIssueOnNodeJS"); 
console.log(s);

[gregfenton]

@ankit142 The issue as posted isn't about fixing the code in the example provided. There are many examples that could be provided.

Essentially this issue is that calling let x = <some_code_that_throws_an_error> leads to a situation where you cannot use x and you cannot redeclare let x. So for the remainder of the REPL session, the symbol x is unusable.

[ankit142]

To address this issue, you can manually reset the variable by using the delete keyword to remove it from the global scope.

let x;

try {
    x = <some_code_that_throws_an_error>;
} catch (error) {
    console.error('Error:', error);
    delete global.x; // Reset variable x
}

// Now you can safely redeclare x or use it again
x = <valid_code>;

[gregfenton]

Again, the issue is not with "fixing the code". It is a bad behaviour of the REPL. You don't know that the code you just typed will hit an error. It does. The symbol you tried to use (x) is now unusable for the remainder of the REPL.

This isn't about "writing good code" vs. "writing bad code". This is about the user experience using the REPL when playing around with code.

• Why would someone do this?
  • developer trying stuff -- copy/paste instructions from somewhere or whatever
• Why not just use another symbol once x is unusable?
  • other code coming (think copy/paste instructions) leverages that same symbol; the user would be forced to either stop/restart the REPL or refactor the code they are about to paste
    • both of the workarounds above are not a good/healthy user experience

[RedYetiDev]

FWIW @1Git2Clone has a issue with chromium at https://issues.chromium.org/issues/345248266.