Optional argument types
slightlyoff at google.com
Tue Sep 25 04:04:28 PDT 2012
Perhaps, but it's easy to be too naive about what VMs do (and don't do).
Best to design for semantics with performance in mind, not the other way
In any case, would you be looking for nominal or structural type tests here?
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
... 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>
> > I think it's just the matter of the need. If these optional argument
> > 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
> > 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.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss