Scoped binding of a method to an object

John Lenz concavelenz at
Mon Oct 14 09:59:54 PDT 2013

Does this performance hit still exist in light of Symbol? It seems you
could build  lexical extensions on top of it without introducing a
performance penalty.
On Oct 13, 2013 10:49 AM, "Brendan Eich" <brendan at> wrote:

> Erik Arvidsson <mailto:erik.arvidsson at gmail.**com<erik.arvidsson at>
>> >
>> October 13, 2013 10:32 AM
>> We did proposes this back in 2011
>> object_extensions<>
>> I wasn't at this actual F2F meeting so I don't know many details.
>> Brendan might remember what the blocking issue was?
> I wrote why in my reply, cited below:
>  Your subject recalls a defunct proposal to add lexically-scoped but
>> heap-based -- therefore object property-lookup performance hindering --
>> extension properties. This proposal died precise because of the performance
>> problem.
> Every property access sprouts a third parameter beyond object and property
> name, namely a lexical scope token of some kind. All property maps in
> objects shared in the heap also sprout such a scope token along with
> property name.
> (This is quite reminiscent of ES4 namespaces, which we agreed to reject
> from any future ECMA-262 in order to forge Harmony in 2008. See
> .)
> Implementors objected, including V8 folks (if I recall correctly, Andreas
> Rossberg). This was at the May 2011 TC39 meeting hosted at the University
> of California at Santa Cruz.
> /be
> ______________________________**_________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list