Question about joined function object of ECMA-262 3rd edition
cowan at ccil.org
Thu Jul 26 14:33:52 PDT 2007
> A could have any number of local variables, b1 and b2 could still be
> joined. The important factor is that it doesn't use variables from the
> containing scope(s), so there is no observable difference.
Yes, that is what I meant.
> If any implementation would chose to do the joined objects behaviour,
> are they not more likely to actually just use a reference to the same
> function object instead of joining two different objects?
Quite so; as I said, the difference between joined and being the same
is irrelevant in this context, and indeed an internal detail of the
> However, I think the compiler complexity added for implementing this
> will give a negliable reduction in footprint, so most implementors
> haven't found it worthwile to do it.
So far. Eventually, someone will write an "ahead-of-time" compiler
in the style of typical Lisp compilers, where such things matter.
My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan
For XML Schema's too taxing: cowan at ccil.org
I'd use DTDs http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
If they had local trees --
I think I best switch to RELAX NG.
More information about the Es4-discuss