allen at wirfs-brock.com
Fri Sep 16 15:13:14 PDT 2011
On Sep 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> This all sounds reasonable but I don't see how it particularly impacts the actual specification.
> The spec has multiple customers. I agree it doesn't change the spec's normative requirements on implementors. If this simply gets demoted to clear a non-normative note, I think that would be fine.
> Do you agree that the specification of the weak map gc issue should be handled the same way as the tail call issue?
I'm not sure exactly how we are going to specify tail calls. I know that Dave Herman has ideas that I assume we will build upon .
For weak maps I think that a non-normative note that make explicit the "doesn't leak" expectation and points implementors towards an ephemeron based implementation will suffice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss