Comment #16 on issue 505 by [email protected]: Implement function
denesting optimization
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=505
But how does that function produce different results?
var fn = <your example>
for (;;) {
call_fn( fn );
}
from,
for (;;) {
call_fn( function (f) {<your example>} );
}
re: It is irrelevant if call_fn has non-local variables or not.
That's not true. If you're compiling functions that close over non-local
variables than reification depends on context. If not all functions can be
first class citizens, and without IO they'd all return the same result.
This request was to *not* to redefine functions that don't actually
close-over anything. I'm not sure that you're that you're wrong. That there
is some concrete reason why a function lacking non-local variables can't be
elevated to a first-class function. I would just love to see an example,
and I'm not sure what proof you're requesting.
Maybe this should be closed as Wont Fix, not Working As Intended.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
