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

Brendan Eich brendan at
Tue Jul 31 10:45:54 PDT 2007

On Jul 31, 2007, at 5:41 AM, P T Withington wrote:

> Indeed.  I was suggesting that the spec was broken; that it meant to
> prescribe an optimization to avoid unnecessary closures, but that it
> got it wrong (perhaps because it overlooked the mutability of the
> function object itself?).  Surely backwards compatibility should not
> trump correctness?  You don't want to have to force users to contrive
> to create a closure just to be able to add properties to a function?

No, none of that (breaking backward compatibility, requiring closures  
for mutability) was desired.

I wasn't around for Edition 3 except for one or two meetings (pitched  
sharp variables and uneval/toSource), but I talked to Waldemar about  
this at some point. The goal was to allow an optimization that would  
be implementation dependent. I believe mutability was forgotten. So  
we should just remove all this joined function language.


More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list