Optional argument types

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 03:44:27 PDT 2012

... or the ability to boost up a lot JIT and performances ... but I agree
on the non trivial, rich in ugly JS corner cases too, e.g. string as
primitive VS String as instanceof

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com>wrote:

> On 24 September 2012 20:53, Dmitry Soshnikov <dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think it's just the matter of the need. If these optional argument
> types
> > are very needed by devs, then it's probably not a big deal to add them to
> > the standard -- after all it's still in the draft, not published (it's
> just
> > a small section on generating the prologue, isn't it?).
> It actually is a very big deal. Getting such a feature right is highly
> non-trivial, with lots of ugly JS corner cases to worry about. Let
> alone a good runtime cost model.
> /Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120925/1842e608/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list