doc: update example of using await in REPL

[deokjinkim]

Lexical scope of const is only invalidated when
using top-level await in REPL.

Fixes: #45918

[aduh95]

Can we add a test for that?

[deokjinkim]

Can we add a test for that?

Okay. I'll try to write test case for that.

[BridgeAR]

The scope is still changed, if I am not mistaken:

> const m = await Promise.resolve(123)
undefined
> m
123
> m = 'Lexial scope changed!'
'Lexial scope changed!'
> m
'Lexial scope changed!'
> 

vs.

> const m = 123
undefined
> m
123
> m = 'Lexial scope changed!'
Uncaught TypeError: Assignment to constant variable.
> 

[deokjinkim]

@jasnell As I checked, you are author of this change(#38449). Do you have any idea for this issue?

[BridgeAR]

The change is LGTM. I can't reproduce any other behavior anymore.
Ideally we could add a test case that validates the outcome accordingly.

See comment above

[deokjinkim]

The change is LGTM. I can't reproduce any other behavior anymore. Ideally we could add a test case that validates the outcome accordingly.

@BridgeAR @aduh95 Added test case according to change of document in REPL. Could you please review again?

[aduh95]

And the drive the point home:

Suggested change

	['k', '234'],
	['k', '234'],
	['const k = await Promise.resolve(345)'],
	['k', '345'],

[deokjinkim]

line 180 causes error like 'Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'k' has already been declared'.
When I tested,

// This is allowed
const k = await Promise.resolve(123)
k = await Promise.resolve(234)

// This is not allowed
const k = await Promise.resolve(123)
const k = await Promise.resolve(234)

[github-actions]

This issue/PR was marked as stalled, it will be automatically closed in 30 days. If it should remain open, please leave a comment explaining why it should remain open.

[BridgeAR]

The mentioned issue seems to be resolved by another PR.
I believe this could therefore be closed? It would otherwise need a rebase. If I am wrong, please open a new PR, since it's more likely to be picked up that way again!