On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:46 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > Just pointing out that not using const properties doesn't mean that the need > for a const read barrier on every property access. Without doing closed world > whole program analysis every property [[Get]] has to account for the > possibility that it may be accessing an uninitialized const property. It may > be that an implementation can find a way to fold this check into an initial > fast-path guard.
That analysis/guard must exist due to getters already. > By introducing such a semantics we are adding to the complexity of every > [[Get]]. > > This is different form the read barrier for lexical const declaration which > can be lexical name specific within a lexically bounded scope. Right. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
