On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 13:24, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 12:59 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I'll agree that as long as it's fast enough for real life uses, the
actual big-O or multiplicative constants are of no interest. For
instance, the current inheritance has a
On 2011-04-07, at 13:27, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 5, 2011, at 2:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
What I'm worried about is the memory cost of such an implementation. The
current [[HasInstance]] implementation has a constant memory cost. Keeping
references has a linear memory cost in terms of
On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:40 AM, P T Withington wrote:
An oldie, but a goodie, perhaps relevant to this discussion:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/jv/pubs/oopsla97.pdf
Absolutely! We used this technique quite effectively in Instantiations' Jove
whole program optimizer for Java
Le 07/04/2011 19:27, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Apr 5, 2011, at 2:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
What I'm worried about is the memory cost of such an implementation.
The current [[HasInstance]] implementation has a constant memory
cost. Keeping references has a linear memory cost in terms of
On Apr 3, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Apr 2, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Is multiple inheritance a use case that TC39 intends to address in a
generic manner?
No.
Inheritance-based instanceof testing for the purpose of dynamic
classification of objects is
On Apr 5, 2011, at 2:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
What I'm worried about is the memory cost of such an implementation. The
current [[HasInstance]] implementation has a constant memory cost. Keeping
references has a linear memory cost in terms of instance number. My favorite
real-world
I''ve been a bit pinch for time the last couple days, but here are some
preliminary responses to a few points below.
On Apr 5, 2011, at 1:38 PM, David Bruant wrote:
On Apr 2, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote (except the this is really
quoting Allen Wirfs-Brock):
Inheritance-based
On Apr 2, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I have the feeling that none of these can help out with multiple
inheritance. This is the problem I want to address.
Why? I mean, given the WebIDL and DOM changes.
Is multiple inheritance a
I largely agree with Allen's point of approaching classification in a
dynamically typed language. I'm also a proponent of divorcing object
classification entirely from the inheritance hierarchy. In our
traits.js library, we decoupled traits from types, leaving the task of
classifying
On Apr 5, 2011, at 1:38 PM, David Bruant david.bru...@labri.fr wrote:
On Apr 2, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I have the feeling that none of these can help out with multiple
inheritance. This is the problem I want to address.
Why?
I largely agree with Allen's point of approaching classification in a
dynamically typed language. I'm also a proponent of divorcing object
classification entirely from the inheritance hierarchy. In our traits.js
library, we decoupled traits from types, leaving the task of classifying
Le 03/04/2011 02:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I have the feeling that none of these can help out with multiple
inheritance. This is the problem I want to address.
Why? I mean, given the WebIDL and DOM changes.
Because people want it;
On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:29 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 03/04/2011 10:12, David Bruant a écrit :
Le 03/04/2011 02:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I have the feeling that none of these can help out with multiple
inheritance. This is the problem I want
On Apr 2, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I have the feeling that none of these can help out with multiple
inheritance. This is the problem I want to address.
Why? I mean, given the WebIDL and DOM changes.
Is multiple inheritance
Hi,
This proposal is another attempt to address the DOM Element+EventTarget
multiple inheritance issue in ECMAScript.
The main idea of my proposal is to introduce the concept of object
equivalence classes. First off, I'd like to say that I refer to a
concept
On Apr 2, 2011, at 11:44 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
This proposal is another attempt to address the DOM Element+EventTarget
multiple inheritance issue in ECMAScript.
That issue was resolved by putting EventTarget on the inheritance chain. See
On Apr 2, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
You must mean only in the cases where typeof a == typeof b, then a == b = a
=== b, and === is an e.r. But that does not mean == is an e.r.
Forgot typeof a == object above, to be precise.
For mismatching types, == is not transitive, so not an
[Adding DOMCore to the discussion]
Le 02/04/2011 21:16, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Apr 2, 2011, at 11:44 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
This proposal is another attempt to address the DOM Element+EventTarget
multiple inheritance issue in ECMAScript.
That issue was resolved by putting
Le 02/04/2011 21:30, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Apr 2, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
You must mean only in the cases where typeof a == typeof b, then a == b =
a === b, and === is an e.r. But that does not mean == is an e.r.
Forgot typeof a == object above, to be precise.
Indeed, I
On Apr 2, 2011, at 1:58 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I'm surprised by the idea that == could be defined on a per-value
comparison basis on objects (Array as you give it as an example). It
doesn't make the relation last throughout the program lifetime (which is
what I was trying to do and requires
On Apr 2, 2011, at 1:58 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I'm surprised by the idea that == could be defined on a per-value
comparison basis on objects (Array as you give it as an example). It
doesn't make the relation last throughout the program lifetime (which is
what I was trying to do and requires
Le 02/04/2011 23:40, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Apr 2, 2011, at 1:58 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I'm surprised by the idea that == could be defined on a per-value
comparison basis on objects (Array as you give it as an example). It
doesn't make the relation last throughout the program lifetime
On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:19 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I have the feeling that none of these can help out with multiple inheritance.
This is the problem I want to address.
Why? I mean, given the WebIDL and DOM changes.
Is multiple inheritance a use case that TC39 intends to address in a generic
23 matches
Mail list logo
