Comment #17 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
(they'd be pure functions, no global state and no side effects). 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.
