I should make clear that even though I said "at the very least", which might sounds like it's minor, I actually think this parity is more important than any performance improvements.
- Josh On Jun 25, 2017 9:36 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have yet to hear a good reason not to default to null either. Why are > you fighting this so hard? All of your arguments that I can recall seem to > be that Justin's performance claims aren't as big as he says. Is there more > that I missed? Because if it's little more than that, then, at the very > least, it's good to improve parity between JS and SWF. > > - Josh > > > On Jun 24, 2017 11:45 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not unless you can demonstrate there’s a good reason to do so. I have yet > to see that. > > > On Jun 24, 2017, at 5:45 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > > Are you OK for Objects and Strings to default to null as well? > > >
