> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > > > Let me turn it around. > > From my perspective, it isn't an E4X vs. ES4 distinction; > > it's a "looking up a property of a first-class object" vs. > > "using a local variable" (or, if you prefer, "looking up a > > property of an activation > > object") distinction. It's not as if this is an uncommon > > distinction in programming languages, and the advantage of > > keeping the distinction is better static analysis, better > > performance, more tractable code.
On 04/04/2008, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your comment about inhibiting static analysis isn't right; if ns::x is a > name then either ns is known to be constant at compile time or not, and > if it is, then nothing prevents early binding. ES3 systems perform > analyses that are inhibited by eval and with, and statically detect > whether eval and with are used in order to decide whether to perform the > analyses. I thought the argument was about the ns::[name] form... While the namespace may be known at compile time, the actual variable name is not - which means that the implementation actually has to be able to look local variable names up as strings, instead of just object members. That is similar in effect to locally scoped eval. ES3 allows restricting eval such that this string look up only has to work if the compiler actually sees an "eval" in the fucntion body, though. I guess the same argument can be made for these dynamic namespace lookups too, however. -- David "liorean" Andersson _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
