On Nov 1, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > On Nov 1, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > >> On Nov 1, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote: >> >>> The technique I showed of course initially is designed to be used with >>> class-system; though, I think it can be adopted to class-free system as >>> well. >> >> We're not going to delete and restore. That's a non-starter for performance >> and observable mutation reasons. > > the mutation is so wrong, and not just for performance reasons.
So wrong, don't get me started. It's important to avoid non-starters that delete, but more than that, we have a pigeon-hole problem. You can't solve it using the heap and nested save-and-restore mutation. That's observable and it doesn't compose. Back to minimal classes with super factored out nicely as Allen has done. I have a counter-proposal brewing. /be > > Assume x is global constant reference to an obj and foo is a method of that > object that does a super.foo call up through several levels of "superclass" > foo methods. > > In that case the expression "x.foo()" when called from "somewhere else, such > as from a top level expression", is going to do something different then what > it does when called (either directly or indirectly) from a super invocation > of one of the superclass foo methods. That can't be reasonable behavior. > > Allen > > > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
