let

The let statement declares a block scope local variable, optionally initializing it to a value.

The source for this interactive example is stored in a GitHub repository. If you'd like to contribute to the interactive examples project, please clone https://github.com/mdn/interactive-examples and send us a pull request.

Syntax

let var1 [= value1] [, var2 [= value2]] [, ..., varN [= valueN]];

Parameters

var1, var2, …, varN

Variable name. It can be any legal identifier.

value1, value2, …, valueN

Initial value of the variable. It can be any legal expression.

Description

let allows you to declare variables that are limited in scope to the block, statement, or expression on which it is used. This is unlike the var keyword, which defines a variable globally, or locally to an entire function regardless of block scope.

An explanation of why the name "let" was chosen can be found here.

Scoping rules

Variables declared by let have their scope in the block for which they are defined, as well as in any contained sub-blocks. In this way, let works very much like var. The main difference is that the scope of a var variable is the entire enclosing function:

function varTest() {
  var x = 1;
  if (true) {
    var x = 2;  // same variable!
    console.log(x);  // 2
  }
  console.log(x);  // 2
}

function letTest() {
  let x = 1;
  if (true) {
    let x = 2;  // different variable
    console.log(x);  // 2
  }
  console.log(x);  // 1
}

At the top level of programs and functions, let, unlike var, does not create a property on the global object. For example:

var x = 'global';
let y = 'global';
console.log(this.x); // "global"
console.log(this.y); // undefined

Emulating private members

In dealing with constructors it is possible to use the let bindings to share one or more private members without using closures:

var Thing;

{
  let privateScope = new WeakMap();
  let counter = 0;

  Thing = function() {
    this.someProperty = 'foo';
    
    privateScope.set(this, {
      hidden: ++counter,
    });
  };

  Thing.prototype.showPublic = function() {
    return this.someProperty;
  };

  Thing.prototype.showPrivate = function() {
    return privateScope.get(this).hidden;
  };
}

console.log(typeof privateScope);
// "undefined"

var thing = new Thing();

console.log(thing);
// Thing {someProperty: "foo"}

thing.showPublic();
// "foo"

thing.showPrivate();
// 1

Temporal Dead Zone and errors with let

Redeclaring the same variable within the same function or block scope raises a SyntaxError.

if (x) {
  let foo;
  let foo; // SyntaxError thrown.
}

In ECMAScript 2015, let bindings are not subject to Variable Hoisting, which means that let declarations do not move to the top of the current execution context. Referencing the variable in the block before the initialization results in a ReferenceError (contrary to a variable declared with var, which will just have the undefined value). The variable is in a "temporal dead zone" from the start of the block until the initialization is processed.

function do_something() {
  console.log(bar); // undefined
  console.log(foo); // ReferenceError
  var bar = 1;
  let foo = 2;
}

You may encounter errors in switch statements because there is only one block.

let x = 1;
switch(x) {
  case 0:
    let foo;
    break;
    
  case 1:
    let foo; // SyntaxError for redeclaration.
    break;
}

However, it's important to point out that a block nested inside a case clause will create a new block scoped lexical environment, which will not produce the redeclaration errors shown above.

let x = 1;

switch(x) {
  case 0: {
    let foo;
    break;
  }  
  case 1: {
    let foo;
    break;
  }
}

The temporal dead zone and typeof

Unlike with simply undeclared variables and variables that hold a value of undefined, using the typeof operator to check for the type of a variable in that variable's TDZ will throw a ReferenceError:

// prints out 'undefined'
console.log(typeof undeclaredVariable);
// results in a 'ReferenceError'
console.log(typeof i);
let i = 10;

Another example of temporal dead zone combined with lexical scoping

Due to lexical scoping, the identifier "foo" inside the expression (foo + 55) evaluates to the if block's foo, and not the overlying variable foo with the value of 33.
In that very line, the if block's "foo" has already been created in the lexical environment, but has not yet reached (and terminated) its initialization (which is part of the statement itself): it's still in the temporal dead zone.

function test(){
   var foo = 33;
   if (true) {
      let foo = (foo + 55); // ReferenceError
   }
}
test();

This phenomenon may confuse you in a situation like the following. The instruction let n of n.a is already inside the private scope of the for loop's block, hence the identifier "n.a" is resolved to the property 'a' of the 'n' object located in the first part of the instruction itself ("let n"), which is still in the temporal dead zone since its declaration statement has not been reached and terminated.

function go(n) {
  // n here is defined!
  console.log(n); // Object {a: [1,2,3]}

  for (let n of n.a) { // ReferenceError
    console.log(n);
  }
}

go({a: [1, 2, 3]});

Other situations

When used inside a block, let limits the variable's scope to that block. Note the difference between var whose scope is inside the function where it is declared.

var a = 1;
var b = 2;

if (a === 1) {
  var a = 11; // the scope is global
  let b = 22; // the scope is inside the if-block

  console.log(a);  // 11
  console.log(b);  // 22
} 

console.log(a); // 11
console.log(b); // 2

Specifications

Browser compatibility

See also

• var
• const
• ES6 In Depth: let and const
• Breaking changes in let and const in Firefox 44
• You Don't Know JS: Scope & Closures: Chapter 3: Function vs. Block Scope
• StackOverflow: What is the Temporal Dead Zone.
• StackOverflow: What is the difference between using let and var?