Perhaps, but it's easy to be too naive about what VMs do (and don't do). Best to design for semantics with performance in mind, not the other way around.
In any case, would you be looking for nominal or structural type tests here? On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> wrote: ... or the ability to boost up a lot JIT and performances ... but I agree on the non trivial, rich in ugly JS corner cases too, e.g. string as primitive VS String as instanceof On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]>wrote: > On 24 September 2012 20:53, Dmitry Soshnikov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think it's just the matter of the need. If these optional argument > types > > are very needed by devs, then it's probably not a big deal to add them to > > the standard -- after all it's still in the draft, not published (it's > just > > a small section on generating the prologue, isn't it?). > > It actually is a very big deal. Getting such a feature right is highly > non-trivial, with lots of ugly JS corner cases to worry about. Let > alone a good runtime cost model. > > /Andreas > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
