On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:23 PM, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I mostly have a similar approach in mind for tail calls. Precise about the > interface, imprecise/informative about the implementation requirements. For > WeakMaps, that means a well-defined API with informal English describing the > expectations about memory consumption. For tail calls, it means a > well-defined spec for what is considered a tail call with, again, informal > English describing the expectations about memory consumption. > Thanks Dave, Allen, ok then. +1 without further reservations ;). > > Dave > > On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> 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. >> > > +1. At least until we see how Dave proposes specing tail calls to see if he > has any ideas we might adapt. > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
