Question about joined function object of ECMA-262 3rd edition
brendan at mozilla.org
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