On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM, K. Gadd <k...@luminance.org> wrote: > JSIL and embind both need arguments.length for efficient method call > dispatch when dealing with overloaded functions. Is it your intent that all > such scenarios must now pay the cost of creating an array (to hold the rest > arguments) and then destructuring it, for every call? At present it's > possible to avoid this overhead in V8 and SpiderMonkey by using > arguments.length + arguments[n] or by using arguments.length + patterned > argument names. >
Hi Katelyn, No one is taking arguments away. Perhaps we would if we could but we can't. So as I said just now to Allen, if you really need to do this, go ahead and use arguments.length. But do you really need to do this? Assuming for a moment that we were all agreed that the best practice is to treat absence the same as undefined, why not go with the best practice and be done? > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Le 10/11/2013 22:19, Brendan Eich a écrit : >> >> On Nov 10, 2013, at 9:12 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < >>>> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Not sure why this is so needed though. >>>> >>> Allen's posts make the case: webidl and varargs-style functions. Not all >>> legacy. >>> >> WebIDL creates spec, not code. The language syntax doesn't need to evolve >> for that. Allen showed that rest params+destructuring allows self-hosting >> without |arguments| >> Varargs functions have rest parameters. >> >> David >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
