"for-in", shadowing and deleting properties.
gds at doc.ic.ac.uk
Thu May 9 06:19:32 PDT 2013
Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> writes:
> On 9 May 2013 14:58, Gareth Smith <gds at doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In general, I think the message I'm getting from you is that when it
>> comes to for-in, a more permissive reading of the standard is likely to
>> be more accurate.
>> Does this seem fair?
> Yes, I would say so. Moreover, I wouldn't even assume that for-in
> semantics is deterministic for any given VM -- it can change depending
> on dynamic optimisations and representation changes.
Thanks, that's great.
Our current candidate formalism does indeed allow for non-determinism :)
More information about the es-discuss