Do you mean Flash 5 ActionScript implement joined function? I have
downloaded flash 5, but this old software can't be installed on win
xp...
On 7/31/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh. Ha, ha. Now I understand a piece of code in our runtime that
> did exactly that (since removed)
On 05/08/07, Shijun He <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read your post again today. And I found the key point is the
> definition of "Equated".
Yeah, but my argument was flawed since the spec never actually says
what I read out from it.
> 13.1.1
> Both uses obtained their FunctionBody from the same
In my opinion, the optimisation such as closure prototype in the
spidermonkey is enough and joined function optimisation is useless
(and wrong). If the developer want reuse the same function object,
they can write like this:
function A() {
...
}
A.B = function (x) {
return x * x;
}
On 8/1/07, B
I read your post again today. And I found the key point is the
definition of "Equated".
13.1.1
Both uses obtained their FunctionBody from the same location in the
source text of the same ECMAScript program. This source text consists
of global code and any contained function codes according to the
On 04/08/07, Shijun He <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/27/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Functions with different scope may be joined, but only if the scope
> > difference will lead to no externally observable difference.
>
> I would like to say my opinion again: though your words is
On 7/27/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Functions with different scope may be joined, but only if the scope
> difference will lead to no externally observable difference.
I would like to say my opinion again: though your words is very
reasonable, and I believe that may be the original mea
On Jul 31, 2007, at 5:41 AM, P T Withington wrote:
> Indeed. I was suggesting that the spec was broken; that it meant to
> prescribe an optimization to avoid unnecessary closures, but that it
> got it wrong (perhaps because it overlooked the mutability of the
> function object itself?). Surely b
On 2007-07-31, at 07:52 EDT, Lars T Hansen wrote:
> On 7/30/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So, what the spec meant to say is: If the compiler writer can think
>> of an optimization that will save time or space and not break the
>> semantics of Javascript, they are permitted to
On 7/30/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, what the spec meant to say is: If the compiler writer can think
> of an optimization that will save time or space and not break the
> semantics of Javascript, they are permitted to make that
> optimization. :)
Joining is more sinister t
So, what the spec meant to say is: If the compiler writer can think
of an optimization that will save time or space and not break the
semantics of Javascript, they are permitted to make that
optimization. :)
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss
> On 7/27/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > x()===y() may return false the same way x()===x() may return false.
> > Functions in JavaScript may have side effects, and the same input
> > doesn't necessarily give the same output in cosecutive uses of the
> > function.
On 27/07/07, Shijun He
On 7/27/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> x()===y() may return false the same way x()===x() may return false.
> Functions in JavaScript may have side effects, and the same input
> doesn't necessarily give the same output in cosecutive uses of the
> function.
No, I don't mean side effect, an
On 26/07/07, Neil Mix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait, am I following this correctly in that:
[snip]
> var x = A();
> var y = A();
>
> x.foo = 1;
> y.foo = 2;
>
> alert(x.foo + y.foo);
>
> would show "3" in current compliant implementations, but
> theoretically in the future an implementation cou
I also post the question in the google groups such as
comp.lang.javascript and netscape.public.mozilla.jseng.
One reponse from mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine/browse_thread/thread/16e22c189c9ea5f6/5383179969284d97#5383179969284d97
Jason Orendo
On 7/27/07, Neil Mix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait, am I following this correctly in that:
>
> function A() {
>function B() {}
>return B;
> }
>
> var x = A();
> var y = A();
>
> x.foo = 1;
> y.foo = 2;
>
> alert(x.foo + y.foo);
>
> would show "3" in current compliant implementat
Wait, am I following this correctly in that:
function A() {
function B() {}
return B;
}
var x = A();
var y = A();
x.foo = 1;
y.foo = 2;
alert(x.foo + y.foo);
would show "3" in current compliant implementations, but
theoretically in the future an implementation could exist tha
liorean scripsit:
> A could have any number of local variables, b1 and b2 could still be
> joined. The important factor is that it doesn't use variables from the
> containing scope(s), so there is no observable difference.
Yes, that is what I meant.
> If any implementation would chose to do the
> Shijun He scripsit:
> > function A() {
> > function B(x) { return x*x }
> > return B
> > }
> >
> > var b1 = A();
> > var b2 = A();
> >
> > Spec says: b1 and b2 can be joined, implementation may make b1 and
> > b2 the same object because [[scope]] of them have no difference.
> >
> > Two call o
Shijun He scripsit:
> function A() {
> function B(x) { return x*x }
> return B
> }
>
> var b1 = A();
> var b2 = A();
>
> Spec says: b1 and b2 can be joined, implementation may make b1 and
> b2 the same object because [[scope]] of them have no difference.
>
> Two call of A() will produce a f
Hi, all:
First, I'm sorry because the question is mainly about es3 not es4, but
I don't know other place to get a authority answer about my question.
We are talking about closure in javascript, and we have some questions
about ECMA-262 3rd edition:
What is joined function object(ecma-262 13.1)?
T
20 matches
Mail list logo
