On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]>
wrote:
A function object (remember joined function objects in ES3?)
created from
the compiler-created immutable-shared function may or may not have
a name
property in the proposal, but calling toString on a function object
created
(to form a closure) should not, in my opinion, get the value of the
"name"
property of that particular (or any other) closure object.
Setting the name of the compiler-created function by assigning a
property to
one of N (N>=1) unjoined function objects could be done. No more
"immutable"
but the "shared" still applies. I do not favor this, but it could
be done. I
suspect the Obj-J folks want it.
I strongly object. Such sharing of state, enabled only by sharing the
same function literal in the code, violates all notions of state
isolation. It presents all the same hazards that the ES3 sharing of
mutable RegExp literal objects had. The current draft spec repairs all
such leaks. Let's not introduce another.
I obviously agree, but let me agree more strongly. Huzzah!
/be
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
