On Sep 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> > wrote: > [...] > This all sounds reasonable but I don't see how it particularly impacts the > actual specification. > > The spec has multiple customers. I agree it doesn't change the spec's > normative requirements on implementors. If this simply gets demoted to clear > a non-normative note, I think that would be fine. > > Do you agree that the specification of the weak map gc issue should be > handled the same way as the tail call issue?
I'm not sure exactly how we are going to specify tail calls. I know that Dave Herman has ideas that I assume we will build upon . For weak maps I think that a non-normative note that make explicit the "doesn't leak" expectation and points implementors towards an ephemeron based implementation will suffice. Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
