Optional argument types
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 06:31:08 PDT 2012
That's a hell of a question ... shapes speaking I'd say structural, since
AFAIK shapes are those boosted up more, isn't it?
That would solve String VS string and Array VS Arguments which is, I
believe, kinda desired.
Which one would you chose ?
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff at google.com>wrote:
> 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
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> ... 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
>> > 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