Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Oct 26, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
If this is how Records work, it would be good to spell that out
explicitly.
Mutable records have reference, not value, semantics -- good point.
Some might object to calling any such spec-internal device a
"record". This use of spec-internal reference-semantics mutable
"record" could be awkward in a future edition:
https://github.com/sebmarkbage/ecmascript-immutable-data-structures
But that is describing language level types, not spec. devices. they
would not directly map to the List/Record specification types.
Of course, but the name "record" would be confusingly overloaded. Can we
avoid this?
Does the spec anywhere else need reference semantics for its internal
list and record types?
Yes, all over the place. The spec. explicitly makes copies when it
doesn't want shared references.
All over the place? I see 12 "copy of" occurrences, not all about
internal list and record types. Probably < 10 to consider. More in a bit.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
