rossberg at google.com
Thu Dec 15 07:49:07 UTC 2016
On 15 December 2016 at 03:26, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
> I presume most implementations define scope
>> variables much like object properties internally.
> That's not clear to me at all. In general, non-object environments don't
> need to support all the operations objects do (e.g. you can't delete
> bindings), so the implementation tradeoffs are quite different and using a
> separate codepath for environments and object properties is likely to be
> appropriate. Certainly the one implementation for which I know this
> details (SpiderMonkey) has quite different implementations for scope
> variables and object properties.
Indeed, the two couldn't be more different. In general, there isn't even a
self-contained data structure representing a scope, let alone a unique one.
Some variables might live in registers, some on the stack, some on the
heap, some in several of those places at different points in time, some are
optimised away entirely. Their names are not generally kept around either.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss