On Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Ben Noordhuis wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Vyacheslav Egorov wrote:
> >
> > Apparently we define 'stable' differently.
> >
> > Probably not, but I think you've misunderstood the --harmony flag and while
> > doing so, you've decided to argue with me about it.
> >
> >
> > It is behind the flag because it is from the next non-finalized JS standard,
> >
> > Yes, I know, I'm _very_ familiar with "the next non-finalized JS standard".
> >
> >
> > not because it is crashy or buggy.
> >
> > Actually, this is _exactly_ what it's for; Map and Set are missing their
> > iterator APIs completely, ES module syntax support appears and disappears
> > (when it is available, module identifiers are assigned as undefined), let is
> > only allowed with the "use strict" prologue... There's more and I think we
> > both agree that these issues are "unstable" and "buggy".
> >
> >
> >
> > As for string keys: I thought you are proposing to use weakmap like that
> > here, sorry I misunderstood.
> >
> > To clarify, I meant that each scope object could be added as a key to a
> > WeakMap with the cache object as it's value instead of the object dance it
> > does now - which would avoid hasOwnProperty checks and object reference
> > leaks.
> >
> > Implementation has no problem with them (so nothing to report) but
> > primitives can be shared in unexpected ways (e.g. two objects with the
> > property foo hold the same instance of string 'foo'.)
> >
> > Strings don't hold any shared references in JavaScript, but I'm interested
> > in seeing the code you're describing.
> >
> > so one should always keep that in mind, because value will never be released
> > if key is strongly reachable.
> >
> > Yes, this is exactly the point of a WeakMap
>
> Being passive aggressive argumentative like that is a great way to
> piss off people. Please knock it off, Rick.
>
>
I'm absolutely not being passive aggressive and I don't appreciate the
accusation.
I responded to every point that I felt needed a response, in some cases
agreeing, others disagreeing and offering more explanation where it felt right
to do so.
Your accusation here and now is incredibly aggressive and unfair, considering
the discussion was purely technical and you made it personal. So, if you have a
problem with me, feel free to give me a call on my mobile: 857-540-9264 an we
can work it out voice to voice. If I don't answer the first time, leave me a
message and I will call you back.
Rick
>
> --
> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
> Posting guidelines:
> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "nodejs" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
>
>
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
