> On Jan 22, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Neil Mix wrote: > > I also want to make clear: this isn't about debugging code that uses > > PTC intentionally -- that tradeoff is up to the developer. This is > > about the novice coder who finds a stack trace on a production system > > from code that he doesn't own which just happens to be invoking PTC > > implicitly.
On 22/01/2008, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've already copped to low expectations about current-era debuggers, > and it is possible the same dismal view applies to logging traces, at > least on my part. Having to deal with a stack backtrace where you > (n00b or l33t, doesn't matter) have to hop around in 3, or 30, source > files to see how the heck control flowed from function f to g when f > doesn't call g, is Not Fun. The lack of stack traces in ECMA-262, and > anything like Python's much better backtrace support in JS > implementations, may be remedied, and then we'll all feel PTC pain. Maybe it'd make sense to have some "use ImplicitTailCallElimination=bool;" directives that can be used to make sure an implementation has or lacks implicit tail call elimination when running the code, still having explicit TCE possible even with "use ImplicitTailCallElimination=false;", leaving the default behaviour for implicit TCE up to the implementation? Or would that be three ways too many to handle it? -- David "liorean" Andersson _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
