Le 05/01/2012 23:10, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
leaks
When a function has no strong reference, the associated entry in the first WeakMap (which is the second level of weakmap) can be GC'ed. When an object has no strong reference, all entries in second-level WeakMaps can be collected. I don't see any leaks. Assuming a GC with reachability, each bound function is kept only if both the function and the object are still in the environment (which is the minimum we need to achieve the functional goal).


performances
A native implementation can use a hash table using the 2 references as keys. I don't know to what extent it would be that much better.


as example, are the first things I have in mind when I look at that code ( assuming I understand how WeakMap works there )

(...)

My point is that Function.prototype.bind is used 90% of the time with context only, 10% with arguments, 0% as different object since nobody uses two bound functions to the same object, arguments a part.
And you obviously have a one-year study crawling over 100,000 websites and 1000 node projects to back these numbers?

Also, does "use" refer to the occurence of code written doing what you describe or occurence of run?

All in all, let's not use numbers or quantifiers when there is no backing besides the experience of a few, because no reliable decision can really be taken based on that.




Function.prototype.bind could have been implemented via libraries ( as Prototype did ) as well so I don't get your argument, sorry.

I am suggesting a semantic improvement Object related but of course I can solve all missing real-nedeed things via a library ... you know what I mean?
My point is that what can be solved efficiently should be by a library. I think the solution I've provided would be satifactory (you can obviously disagree).

I'm more interested in ECMAScript solving problems that either can't be solved or not efficiently. This currently includes private names, weakmaps, modules, proxies, all the syntax sugar, binary data...

David


Regards

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:01 PM, David Bruant <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Hi Andrea,

    It seems that what you want can be implemented as a library [1]
    (actually you did it as well in your blog post). In this gist, a
    cache is used. In a nutshell, it is a '(function, object) ->
    boundFunction' mapping. I used 2 levels of WeakMaps to achieve this.

    I don't think a native implementation could be that much more
    efficient neither in space nor time.

    Assuming my implementation does what you need, what would be the
    benefit of a native implementation over what I propose?

    David

    [1] https://gist.github.com/1567494


    Le 05/01/2012 14:54, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
    I have thought it may be interesting to receive some comment here
    too ... so here the short summary:

    genericCallback.bind(sameObject) !== genericCallback.bind(sameObject)

    quite inconvenient for listeners and leading to uncomfortable
    patterns ( store the bound reference somewhere and get it back
    later )

    plus bind, at the end of a function, where the topic is the
    context, looks more like a yoda statement

    "function with context as this object"

    rather than

    "object as context of this function"

    So, the proposal, is a simplified Object.prototype.boundTo ( or
    eventually, to avoid conflicts with bind signature
    Object.prototype.asContextOf )
    where the action is object, as context, related, and the returned
    function is one and one only

    sameObject.boundTo(genericCallback) ===
    sameObject.boundTo(genericCallback)

    or, if you prefer

    sameObject.asContextOf(genericCallback) ===
    sameObject.asContextOf(genericCallback)

    Here the whole post with better examples plus the proposed
    solution that would be nice to have in JS.Next
    
http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2012/01/improving-functionprototypebind.html

    Best Regards,
        Andrea Giammarchi


    _______________________________________________
    es-discuss mailing list
    [email protected]  <mailto:[email protected]>
    https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Reply via email to