BTW, by "built-in" I didn't mean to imply anything about how the function was implemented but simply whether or not it was the implementation provided version of a function specified by the standard. It occurred to me that this information might be useful to framework builder as part of a feature detection protocol used to decide whether or not to install framework provided versions of some such methods.
Allen >-----Original Message----- >From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:22 PM >To: Tobie Langel >Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock; Mark Miller; es-discuss Steen >Subject: Re: ES3.1 questions and issues > >On Mar 18, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: > >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 17:20 , Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >> >>> Would it be useful if there was a way to determine whether nor not >>> a function was "built-in"? >> >> That would be useful outside of the security concerns expressed by >> Mark. I'm thinking about performance and robustness concerns in JS >> libraries, for example. > >Can you give an example? > >We're self-hosting native methods that are called built-in by the spec >in TraceMonkey, and I know V8 original self-hosted some Array and >String methods. With the right isolation to avoid violating the spec, >this is a good thing and it should not be prohibited. > >Self-hosting built-ins also should not be the subject of second- >guessing versionitis in JS libraries. Shades of coding C idioms for >the microarchitecture of certain revisions of the x86! > >/be > _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
