On Jun 3, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
My proposal would have you do something along the lines of:
buffer = new ArrayBuffer({x, y, z: uint32; r, g, b, a: uint8} ) //
using your abused syntax
producing an object where you would do:
buffer.x[i] = ...;
buffer.y[i] = ...;
...
Simple Modules are, in their present state, one step forward and two
steps back from the previous generation of proposals. With this
email, I intend to isolate these steps and propose a way to meet one
or two steps forward.
The one step forward comes from handling cyclic dependencies
elegantly.
Hi Kris,
Thanks for your thoughts; I'll keep reading but I do want to respond to a
couple points that I don't think are quite accurate.
The one step forward comes from handling cyclic dependencies
elegantly. If I am correct, this is the feature we gain from second
classness and from not
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:17 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
By keeping modules second class, we get a number of benefits, not
just handling cyclic dependencies. (In fact, cyclic dependencies can
be handled nicely in a first-class module system as well.) One of
the benefits of
4 matches
Mail list logo
