On Feb 10, 2012, at 1:43 AM, Andy Wingo wrote: > I will try this option. Though, I would like to avoid predicating the > implementation of block scope on more general optimizations -- I like > making things fast, but in this case it's the feature that I care > about :)
Awesome! And I do sympathize with your desire to make progress with this feature. 'let' and 'const' are hugely important features in ES6 – important enough that they're probably the only ones that will introduce backwards-incompatible changes, so it will be exciting to see your work make it into a build, so we can start to see what affect this will have on web compatibility. > What about "JSStaticScope"? As in, refactor the existing JSStaticScope > into being this sort of lazy tear-off scope. Yes that sounds fine. I think a few of us are not keen on either the names JSActivation or JSStaticScope, so both may be prime for a rename at some point. If the key distinguishing feature of the two class ends up being that one supports variables being dynamically introduced via an eval and the other does not, and both are classes primary purpose is to support variables captured by functions that close over the current scope, then it seems like the names 'JSClosure' and 'JSDynamicClosure' might be appropriate, and a little better than the current names. But this is tangential – renaming isn't important right now. Refactoring JSStaticScope seems like a perfectly reasonable plan to me. cheers, G.
_______________________________________________ squirrelfish-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/squirrelfish-dev
