Chris Pine wrote: > Ahhh, I see. Maybe that part wasn't communicated on-list, but was > discussed in the trac ticket (or in the phone meeting? can't remember).
I'm just an observer, and have only seen the one ticket (#323) and the discussion here. The ticket proposes a required annotation to activate PTC. On this list, Neil argued against implicit PTC if it was going to compromise debug traces (a very valid concern, IMO), and later asked why some required syntactic overhead for tail calls would be such a bad thing. I was responding to that question. > It was agreed that implementations would always be free to implement > PTC, and where pages depend on it from one browser, others will have to > support it there, too. So, practically speaking, I assumed that it was > an assertion, not a requirement, and that we would all implement it > where we could. You know that the minute there's some PTC around, people will implement crazy CPS-based programs and then complain about how browser X won't run them. So y'all are going to have to get cracking. ;-P Anton _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
