> I'm curious what things you're referring to here. Generally, I think we're > pretty open to more checks in hosted mode. As an example, hosted mode always > runs with assertions enabled.
More assertions are exactly what I've been hoping for. The one case that's stuck with me was issue 2365. As I understand it, those assertions (and the check method, if only called in assertions) will all be compiled away, so there's no size or performance penalty in web mode. On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Isaac Truett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > We've been kicking around the idea of an "unsafe but fast" compile for >> > exactly this reason. >> >> I always thought the compile was "unsafe" already. > > Only for things that are truly unaffordable, like null checks on every > object access. > >> >> I've even suggested adding more hosted mode-only checks >> and been rejected because of the "cost" of such runtime validations. > > I'm curious what things you're referring to here. Generally, I think we're > pretty open to more checks in hosted mode. As an example, hosted mode always > runs with assertions enabled. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
