Maybe John can comment on issue #2365 in particular. On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Isaac Truett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
