order of variable declaration is not taken into account.

[kilianc]

Not sure what rule is missing but this passes validation:

const b = a
const a = 5

[feross]

We currently do not enable the no-use-before-define rule because it triggers way too many false positives. Once this eslint issue is addressed, we can enable the rule so that issues like the one you encountered (as well as this one) will be caught.

[LinusU]

This wasn't meant to be closed, right?

[feross]

Yikes! Yeah, this was not intentional. I used the phrase "until this bug is fixed: #636" in another repo and since I have permissions on this repo, it closed the issue. Heh.

[dcousens]

I personally get bitten by this issue so often I've enabled it in my global eslint-config-standard/eslintrc.json 😕

[feross]

@dcousens My plan is once/if that eslint bug gets fixed, enable the rule so that:

• using classes before they're defined is not allowed
• using function declarations before they're defined is allowed (hoisting)
• using variable declarations before they're defined is allowed, but prevented when it's clearly incorrect, e.g.

Not allowed:

console.log(foo)
var foo = 5

Allowed:

function printFoo() {
    console.log(foo)
}
var foo = 5

This is allowed since it is possible to use printFoo() correctly if you call it after foo is defined. And lots of users of standard do this.

When we start enforcing let over var, maybe we can tighten up this rule.

[dcousens]

I completely agree, it makes recursive or circular functions completely impossible otherwise.
The example I often run into that annoys me locally:

function foo (x) {
  return x ? bar(x) : 1
}

function bar (x) {
  return foo(x - 1)
}

No valid ordering exists with the rule as it stands AFAIK.
It's just a frustrating situation.

edit: actually, [2, "nofunc"] does resolve this issue locally

[dcousens]

Enabling

"no-use-before-define": [2, "nofunc"],
"no-unused-vars": [2, { "vars": "all", "args": "all", "argsIgnorePattern": "^_[0-9]?$" }]

Locally in a project recently, uncovered 5+ critical errors, and 30+ warnings overall that had gone unmissed in a refactoring... bleh
(the [0-9] is to allow for multiple unused arguments)

I know its blocked, but, it is overall frustrating when the potential errors here are quite frustrating and prolific...

Running the same thing against an OSS project I run, and it already found 1 potentially critical error (thankfully not released!) - bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib@fd9c70d

[feross]

@dcousens Are you proposing we just enable the overly aggressive rule even before the eslint issue is addressed? We could do that, but I'm worried about the effect of all the warnings on valid code. We don't want users to think that pleasing standard is a lot of work. It's a tough balance to maintain.

I just pinged the team to ask about the status of the blocked issue eslint/eslint#7111 - hopefully this gets it some movement.

[feross]

The issue at eslint/eslint#7111 was just accepted by the team!

[dcousens]

@feross it was more of a notice for others whom might be waiting on eslint/eslint#7111, but wanted to increase safety in their own projects until it is fixed.

[feross]

This was just merged. Let's include it in the standard v9 release :)

[feross]

This will be part of standard v9. No ecosystem impact.

[caesarsol]

Sorry, is this distinguishing between var and let/const? Doe the behaviour change in any way?

[feross]

This rule will prevent clearly wrong code, like:

console.log(x)
const x = 5

But it will allow code like:

function foo () {
  console.log(x)
}
const x = 5
foo()

Since it works fine :)