Brendan Eich wrote: > Item 2, automated conversion to use C++ exceptions instead of nsresults, > rotating out parameters back into return values, is also something we're > about ready to experiment with, based on Taras's great elsa-based tool > work. I hope to hear results soon, in this newsgroup even.
What I really want out of this is the ability to throw and catch the same exception type(s) from tamarin (JS) that we do in binary code. This is a big challenge, because the Tamarin engine doesn't actually use binary exceptions currently. > The bulleted detailed points after this list of three are less clearly > desirable, or I think wrong. We don't want nsISupports <: GCRoot. Do we I didn't understand what GCRoot was at that point ;-) But I think we've covered that effectively in the other thread. If virtual inheritance weren't so horribly messy, perhaps nsISupports should virtually inherit from GCObject to make the contract clear, but I think that would bloat each instance with an extra vtable. > really want GetInterface from nsIInterfaceRequestor folded into > nsISupports, along with QueryInterface? Probably not... certainly not right away, let's focus on the big wins first. > Likewise I'm skeptical about weak ref support -- I do not think that's > common enough to warrant being in the top abstract interface, and it > falls under the future-of-XPCOM-memory-management thread, where we're > thinking in pretty concrete MMgc terms. I think I disagree, but the move to MMGc makes it irrelevant because you can hold a weakref to any object you wish. --BDS _______________________________________________ dev-tech-xpcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-xpcom
