On 11/01/2013 05:26 PM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
This proposal is before TC39 for inclusion in the next ECMAScript spec
edition following ES6:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:weak_references
Mozilla GC hackers are opposed, for reasons they can articulate; I'm
opposed because I can't stick the nondeterminism and because the total
cost is out of all proportion with the benefit.
However. There are use cases. Please see:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-February/028572.html
and subsequent messages.
Also, though I think this use case is weaker:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-March/029423.html
If you're a GC hacker and you want to stop this train, your best bet is
to read those threads and speak up now.
-j
I'm rather strongly opposed exposing GC behavior in anyway to the Web, since
once that is
done in one API, it is hard to argue why not expose similar nondeterminism in
other APIs and
we soon start to rely on certain GC behavior... should we then specify exactly
what kind of GC behavior
JS should have, and how GC should interact with browser internals (DOM etc)?
IIRC, currently HTML spec exposes GC behavior directly in one place [1] but
that is considered a bug.
(Luckily no one implements PortCollection)
-Olli
[1]
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/web-messaging.html#broadcasting-to-many-ports
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list
dev-tech-js-engine-internals@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-internals
