On Nov 15, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> also, take a break if you have time and enjoy this talk: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFtijdklZDo > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Andrea Giammarchi > <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > funny, 'cause at least one use case I have implemented, is about improving > performances at least 2X for 99% of OOP frameworks out there ... I guess you > like function wrappers then to simulate caller when needed, right? > > Anyway, thanks ... I'd like to hear the same from some TC39 guy if you don't > mind and you are not already otherwise I'll stop here. You mean a TC39 member like me? If you have specific examples, you can file bugs on the various engines where the performance hit is excessive (2x obviously being excessive). --Oliver > > br > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Oliver Hunt <oli...@apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> the debugger you mention is most likely using the with statement ... > > No, the debugger is part of the virtual machine. I'm aware that the WebKit > inspector currently has a rather annoying bug wrt executing code in strict > mode, but that's a _bug_. > >> >> Can we just stick with the answer if it is planned or not? I don't want to >> convince you that there are cases where non strict features are needed ... >> it is just like that and many times already discussed. > > Not planned. > >> Again, is there any real reason to not consider a "no strict" directive? The >> whole web is running no strict thanks to minifiers so I really would like to >> listen to real reasons over already discussed academic debates. > > Because it would complicate the language, the implementation, and have > negative performance consequences. > > --Oliver > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Oliver Hunt <oli...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Andrea Giammarchi >> <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> my typo ... I am NOT talking about callee, I am talking about caller which >>> is NOT a misfeature specially when it comes to debug and stack trace. >> >> The solution to debugging is to use a debugger, not to try and debug from >> within the language. >> >> All modern JS engines provide a) a debugger and b) stack traces on >> exceptions. >> >> Even if they weren't .caller is insufficient: it can't walk over strict, >> native, or global code that exists in the call stack, so at best you only >> get a crappy result. >> >> Like I said in my prior email: If you're willing to toss out the >> improvements of strict mode just to get arguments.caller, you may as well >> stop using it in the first place. >> >> --Oliver >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Oliver Hunt <oli...@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Andrea Giammarchi >>> <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I wonder if there is any plan to allow a chunk of code to disable for its >>> > own closure purpose a previously called "use strict"; directive. >>> > >>> > This is about the ability to use, when not possible otherwise, some good >>> > old feature such caller which is impossible to replicate when use strict >>> > is in place. >>> > >>> > I am talking about arguments.callee, I am talking about caller. >>> >>> arguments.callee and .caller are not good features. >>> >>> Being able to access your caller is a misfeature. >>> >>> arguments.callee is simply unnecessary. >>> >>> Also having the ability to lose strict semantics at arbitrary locations in >>> the middle of other strict modes makes things even slower, and adds all >>> sorts of weird semantic behaviours (eg. what would eval('"no strict"; var >>> x;') do? -- this is hypothetical, just given as a trivial example of where >>> things go weird) >>> >>> --Oliver >>> >> >> > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
