I sure did. Sorry for the noise. Michael
-----Original Message----- From: Mark S. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:03 PM To: Michael Daumling Cc: Peter Michaux; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; TC39; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Look Ma, no "this" (was: ECMAScript Harmony) On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Michael Daumling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a side note: The code below would create three Function objects per > Point instance. Some may argue that the days of having little memory are > long gone, but we still have small devices plus a garbage collector that > may need to iterate through live objects, including three Function > objects per Point. Long live prototype objects. Michael, I think you missed the note at the end of the message you're quoting: > [...] However, the > above technique is impractical today because of the extra allocation > cost -- one closure per method per instance. But as Dan Ingalls says > "you can cheat if you don't get caught." The above desugaring shows > how to define the *semantics* of the class construct. The actual > behavior of the class construct must not be observably different from > some such desugaring. But in a class-aware implementation, it should > of course perform better than you'd expect from this desugaring. > > In the Caja project, we are exploring whether this optimization can > even be provided as a source-to-source translation: > <http://google-caja.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/html/cajitaOptimization > /index.html>. > It's not yet clear that the idea is practically implementable by this > technique > <http://groups.google.com/group/google-caja-discuss/browse_thread/thread > /df6c8ea9a1ca1aa3>. > But none of these problems should impede a more directly implemented > optimization. _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list Es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
