On Jul 31, 2007, at 5:41 AM, P T Withington wrote: > Indeed. I was suggesting that the spec was broken; that it meant to > prescribe an optimization to avoid unnecessary closures, but that it > got it wrong (perhaps because it overlooked the mutability of the > function object itself?). Surely backwards compatibility should not > trump correctness? You don't want to have to force users to contrive > to create a closure just to be able to add properties to a function?
No, none of that (breaking backward compatibility, requiring closures for mutability) was desired. I wasn't around for Edition 3 except for one or two meetings (pitched sharp variables and uneval/toSource), but I talked to Waldemar about this at some point. The goal was to allow an optimization that would be implementation dependent. I believe mutability was forgotten. So we should just remove all this joined function language. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
