Question about joined function object of ECMA-262 3rd edition

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Thu Jul 26 14:33:52 PDT 2007


liorean scripsit:

> 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
implementation.

> 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 mailing list