Hi Allen, does that mean we agreed to the equivalent of Arv's #1? If so, great!
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > This sounds to me like it just need to be reported as a bug There have > been previous bugs that have identified places where library methods > iterated in a manner that precluded implementing them via for-of. For > example https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083 Those bugs were > all fixed. > > Of course it would be nice, if such a bug report actually identified the > places where this is an issue. It would be even better if the bug report > include the suggest changes to the current algorithms. > > Allen > > > On Sep 10, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > > On 10 September 2014 16:52, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvids...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > I see two options here. > > > 1. Add IteratorClose to all places in the spec where we use iterators. > > > Why was #1 rejected? I just don't remember. > > > I don't remember either, but one counter argument will be that it > could be a performance hit. But if we are not willing to take this hit > in our "own" functions then we should better not have this feature at > all. > > /Andreas > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss