I mostly have a similar approach in mind for tail calls. Precise about the interface, imprecise/informative about the implementation requirements. For WeakMaps, that means a well-defined API with informal English describing the expectations about memory consumption. For tail calls, it means a well-defined spec for what is considered a tail call with, again, informal English describing the expectations about memory consumption.
Dave On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> > wrote: > > I'm not sure exactly how we are going to specify tail calls. I know that > Dave Herman has ideas that I assume we will build upon . > > For weak maps I think that a non-normative note that make explicit the > "doesn't leak" expectation and points implementors towards an ephemeron based > implementation will suffice. > > +1. At least until we see how Dave proposes specing tail calls to see if he > has any ideas we might adapt. > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
