On 01.11.2011 23:55, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 1, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Nov 1, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 1, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
The technique I showed of course initially is designed to be used with
class-system; though, I think it can be adopted to class-free system as well.
We're not going to delete and restore. That's a non-starter for performance and
observable mutation reasons.
the mutation is so wrong, and not just for performance reasons.
So wrong, don't get me started.
It's important to avoid non-starters that delete, but more than that, we have a
pigeon-hole problem. You can't solve it using the heap and nested
save-and-restore mutation. That's observable and it doesn't compose.
Don't be worry ;) Once again, it wasn't proposed as "let's standardize
it". It was just an example to show that the problem isn't so hard as
described (well, for a library). It's just a library, but the working
library. ... in most simple cases.
Dmitry.
Back to minimal classes with super factored out nicely as Allen has done. I
have a counter-proposal brewing.
/be
Assume x is global constant reference to an obj and foo is a method of that object that
does a super.foo call up through several levels of "superclass" foo methods.
In that case the expression "x.foo()" when called from "somewhere else, such as
from a top level expression", is going to do something different then what it does when called
(either directly or indirectly) from a super invocation of one of the superclass foo methods. That
can't be reasonable behavior.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
