That's a hell of a question ... shapes speaking I'd say structural, since AFAIK shapes are those boosted up more, isn't it?
That would solve String VS string and Array VS Arguments which is, I believe, kinda desired. Which one would you chose ? On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Alex Russell <[email protected]>wrote: > 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
