On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Jason Orendorff wrote:
break; // exiting JS loops since 1994
1995!
Mercurial logs only go back to 2007, CVS only to 1998, so I will have to
take your word for it! :)
-j
(Referencing the module loaders proposal at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:module_loaders)
1) Loaders have a strict flag which indicates whether code evaluated in
the Loader's context should be implicitly strict. If modules themselves
are implicitly strict, is this flag
2013/1/15 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com:
Hi Mark,
I have a couple of comments:
* On the share-nothing model
This comment goes beyond the paper, but I think is relevant for future work.
Practice of the event loop model in JavaScript has proven that the
share-nothing model has limitations.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
(Referencing the module loaders proposal at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:module_loaders)
1) Loaders have a strict flag which indicates whether code evaluated in
the Loader's context should be implicitly
3) There doesn't appear to be a way to provide a dynamically created
module
instance (created via the Module constructor) as the result of the fetch
hook. My thought is that such a feature might be useful for implementing
dynamically linked binary add-on modules in server environments.
2013/3/5 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
In cases where it'd be acceptable to share prototypes (because they'd be
frozen and hold no powerful reference, for instance), one can wonder if 1)
is that cheaper than the invariants notification proxies are meant to
remove (add+remove prop and
6 matches
Mail list logo
