Hikaru Nakashima oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 09:02:23 UTC 2016

I understand.
I hope to find a good form of literals.

Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following cases?

for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... }
for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... }

If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests.

2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <andyearnshaw at gmail.com>:

> I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage.  Vendors aren't keen on
> any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this
> to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically  impossible.
> It's not just the incompatibility either.  You also introduce an
> inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same
> as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers.
> When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical
> to change the language this way for such a small benefit.
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Oh, I understood it.
>> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
>> If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20161214/0be15588/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list