On 3/10/11 9:18 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
Boris, this is why I also took care to mention that for..in iteration on Arrays should remain unordered
What does this have to do with the post you're replying to?
so that developers doing relatively obscure things like crypto evoting in JavaScript (the use case in the first bug) still have access to a dense-array implementation.
The point is that the bignum library there is using vanilla objects, not arrays. And they're using numeric property names.
If Array for..in iteration continues to be unordered, any developer that cares about the tiny performance difference can use an Array to store non-numeric property/value pairs.
1) They're not doing that now, necessarily, and there's no indication that they'll start.
2) A factor of 6 is not a "tiny performance difference". -Boris _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
