Indeed. We jumped the gun on classes, and see where that has gotten us! :P (Actually, I think adopting classes, and optional and rest args and types, was the right thing to do, it's just too bad that they did not make it into ES5. But we did learn a lesson on how easy it is for a standards committee to change their mind.)
On 2010-06-01, at 08:24, André Bargull wrote: > There is an old ES4 proposal for typed vectors, but it wasn't updated since > almost three years. Also see LPP-6709. > >> On 2010-06-01, at 00:15, Henry Minsky wrote: >> >> >/ In the new flash text layout package, some of the API's text engine >> >classes >> />/ require Vector arguments. Our compiler >> />/ doesn't understand this syntax, I assume. I think I can deal with this >> in >> />/ the kernel using #passthrough blocks where I need >> />/ to construct or access Vectors. Is this likely to become standard >> />/ javascript? Should we be supporting the >> />/ syntax in our script compiler? Seems a little bit of a stretch... >> / >> The only ECMA work on typed arrays that I am aware of is focusing on >> byte-arrays: >> >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:typed_arrays >> >> not on arrays of arbitrary type. So, I don't think we should be trying to >> invent an extension here if we can avoid it. (I think that most runtimes >> create typed arrays for you, under the covers, as an optimization. We know >> for instance, that even as2 watched the keys of array and used a different >> implementation if all the keys were integers in a small range [we know this >> because there were bugs in their implementation at first].) >> >
