Toru Nagashima

Oh, I had forgotten this issue. Yes, I hope to do. I added the memorandum of 7. @shannon `eslint-scope` package has fixed in #33.

@kaicataldo No. The #33 was a superficial fix because I avoided breaking changes. And this is a follow‐up issue to make the correct scope structure. But probably I should write...

Thank you for your proposal. If the purpose was comparison, I wonder if `Object.keys(require("@mysticatea/eslint-plugin").rules)` is enough? (as a side note, for a reference, there is an RFC for `ConfigTester` that...

Thank you for your question. ....but, I'm not sure why it's so. I guess that it's as-is from the original package `escope`. Maybe... it couldn't assume declarations in global scope...

Yes, `data:text/html,var top = function(){}; top();` works fine. Also, new `knownGlobals: string[]` option may be good to make variables and resolve references.

I got it. Thank you. FYI: I have not seen PEER_INVALID warning here. :D ``` > npm i -D babel-register babel-preset-power-assert +-- [email protected] | +-- [email protected] | `-- [email protected] |...

@devsnek I know. You are saying about "basic support (strict mode)" entry. It's "yes" in the table correctly.

cc/ @williamkapke

@williamkapke In that case, I have a question. Why do you separate [basic support](http://node.green/#ES2015-bindings-let-basic-support) and [basic support (strict mode)](http://node.green/#ES2015-bindings-let-basic-support--strict-mode-)? The separated entries are confusing.

Class syntax seems to become `Error` similar to `let`/`const`, but classes don't have `(strict mode)` entries. And some entries are using class syntax in their test functions. E.g., [Generators: shorthand...