Re: Feature proposal

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:06 PM Nicolas B. Pierron >> wrote: >>> Stupid question, but why are some of these methods implemented on >>> String, Array, TypedArray, Map and Set, while all of them are >

Re: Feature proposal

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Mike Samuel wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:06 PM Nicolas B. Pierron > wrote: >> Stupid question, but why are some of these methods implemented on >> String, Array, TypedArray, Map and Set, while all of them are >> Iteratable? > &

Re: Feature proposal

`reverse` generator property on Iteratable. Iteratable.prototype.reverse = function* reverse() { … }; foo.reverse().forEach( e => console.log(e) ) Though, this implies that all these objects implement the Iteratable prototype, and I am not sure what impact this m

Re: Math.sincos(x)?

f you get a subsequent call with the same theta, you've > already done half the work. As far as I know the spec does not provide any mean to specify an acceptable precision to math operations so having an interval-reduced equivalent would not be compliant wit

Re: Math.sincos(x)?

garbage collector. This will also add memory writes/reads to/from memory. Both are not desirable when you are doing math-intensive operations. -- Nicolas B. Pierron ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: "Super" hoisting

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Herby Vojčík wrote: > > > Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: >> >> I do not understand how having local variable should change any GC >> pattern unless you are creating them in the for-loop body. > > > If I understand correctly, the p

Re: "Super" hoisting

called at 60fps in an animation loop (which is the case). Scope wise, yes, but a different init value would be used every time. var o = {}; for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { … } is different than for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { var o = {}; … } -- Nicolas B. Pierron ___

Re: "Super" hoisting

t;>> >>>>> On May 12, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 12, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Brian Barnes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>> If I call doSomething a lot of times, I get a lot of objects to be >>>>>> tracked and GC’d. Yes, I can rewrite that code to obviously eliminate >>>>>> them, >>>>>> but pretend there is actually something interesting happening here that >>>>>> requires those variables. And engines can be smart enough to mark them >>>>>> and >>>>>> deal with them with the function ends (I don’t know if this is done.) >>>>>> >>>>>> What I’m thinking is some kind of class based hint that would “super” >>>>>> hoist all local function variables. It would be sugar but it would >>>>>> transform it into: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Local variables like a,b,c in your example are probably the least >>>>> expensive construct in JS. In your example, there are no objects created >>>>> by >>>>> doSomething, not state that persists after doSomething returns, and no GC >>>>> pressure. Anything you do WRT moving such local state into object >>>>> properties >>>>> is going to be more expensive. >>>>> >>>>> Allen >>>>> >>>> ___ >>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> ___ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > ___ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -- Nicolas B. Pierron ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: GC/Compile requests, with 3D engine demonstration

the amount of memory which can be reclaimed. Thus deciding or not to compact the heap. I also think that this could be used as an assertion for developers, in which case the engine can later warn the developer that objects which were supposed to be unused are still alive when the GC is execute

Re: How should operator overloading work?

em as symbols. > > I always saw overloading operators with Symbols, but you could just > have reserved member names on the prototype of the object as well ~ > '++operator' similar to C++ ? > ___ > es-discuss mailing list > es-di

Re: Re[2]: Operators overriding

; es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> ___ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > > ___ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Nicolas B. Pierron ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss