iteration order for Object
charles at isomorphic.com
Fri Mar 11 11:49:27 PST 2011
Hello John, I'll assume you meant this as humor since the analogy has such obvious flaws.
Having a default strategy on Object of maintaining order obviously does not preclude other
obviously have damaged C by requiring various new types.
On 3/11/2011 11:44 AM, John Tamplin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Charles Kendrick <charles at isomorphic.com
> <mailto:charles at isomorphic.com>> wrote:
> However as far as the default strategy, the highest value thing to do seems to me to impose
> the de-facto standard of 15 years - insertion order - which is a very useful behavior and
> will avoid thousands of websites having to compensate for a change in de-facto standard
> So I suppose you think C should have kept int at 16 bits since there was lots of Win16 code
> that assumed sizeof(int)==2 because it happened to work on their platform, or likewise
> sizeof(int)==sizeof(char*)? Things unspecified in the spec mean "unspecified" -- it doesn't
> mean "rely on whatever behavior the implementation you use exhibits and expect it to be portable".
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
More information about the es-discuss