+1 from me but that doesn't mean too much. No need to explicitly set them as `null`, because JS already has (the more semantic in this case) `undefined`.
_Nick_ On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Gackle <[email protected]>wrote: > The code that's generated for a keyword argument goes like this: > > (ps (defun foo (&key a) (bar a))) => > > (abbreviated for clarity): > > "function foo() { > var a; > // ... pick out and assign keyword args ... > if (a === undefined) { > a = null; > }; > return bar(a); > };" > > It seems to me that this could be made tighter as follows: > > "function foo() { > var a = null; > // ... pick out and assign keyword args ... > return bar(a); > };" > > The only difference I can think of is when someone explicitly passes > undefined > as a value for the argument, but that's an oxymoronic thing to do. > > Can anyone think of a reason not to make this change? I like PS's keyword > arguments a lot, but the generated JS is bloated enough to make me wince. > > _______________________________________________ > parenscript-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel > >
_______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
