Hi Fabrice,
The main reason why I was proposing (hi, lo)-pair based API instead of
lower version is to
a) avoid necessity writing low-level looking code in the high-level
language which is JS;
b) avoid pattern matching in the JS code to recognize construction
built out of low-level 32-bit
Note: my proposal is not limited to 64 bit operations. It can be used to
efficiently implement arbitrary precision arithmetic.
64 bit integer division and remainder are less critical than the other
operations because they are seldom used and slow anyway. Moreover, it is
more difficult to
Note: my proposal is not limited to 64 bit operations. It can be used to
efficiently implement arbitrary precision arithmetic.
True, it is easier to arrive to the efficient and clear code with lowered
representation. With (lo, hi)-result API compiler will have to figure more
things out on it's
I find the specification of template strings still a bit difficult to
understand:
– The abbreviations TV and CV are used 12.2.9, but defined in 11.8.6.1.
– Tagged templates are explained via EvaluateCall(tagRef, TemplateLiteral,
tailCall). I think it would be easier to understand if it used
Here's a link to my slides from a recent talk I gave on ES6.
I thought some on this list my find it interesting
and others might send me corrections. ;-)
http://sett.ociweb.com/sett/settJul2014.html
--
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
___
On Jul 6, 2014, at 6:49 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/6/14, 4:11 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
My reading of the linked Mozilla discussions seems to be that some GC
implementors think it's hard to get the feature right
I'm not sure how you can possibly read
On Jul 4, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Benjamin Bouvier wrote:
Hi,
I would like to emphasize this topic, as it actually matters a lot in
signal processing in general. When one is applying operations like
filters, feedback loops and so on, one isn't interested in very low
values, as they can't be
On 7/9/14, 12:21 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Well, I might disagree with part of this characterization ;-)
I mean current JS engine GC implementor, sorry. The important part is
that your post is not about implementation difficulties in current JS GC
implementations but about something
Your link seems to be broken ;)
2014-07-09 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Volkmann r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com:
Here's a link to my slides from a recent talk I gave on ES6.
I thought some on this list my find it interesting
and others might send me corrections. ;-)
Are you sure? I just tried it and it worked for me.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Maxime Warnier mar...@gmail.com wrote:
Your link seems to be broken ;)
2014-07-09 17:41 GMT+02:00 Mark Volkmann r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com:
Here's a link to my slides from a recent talk I gave on ES6.
I
It's working now. Strange.. anyway, thanks :)
2014-07-09 20:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Volkmann r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com:
Are you sure? I just tried it and it worked for me.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Maxime Warnier mar...@gmail.com wrote:
Your link seems to be broken ;)
2014-07-09 17:41
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I find the specification of template strings still a bit difficult to
understand:
– The abbreviations TV and CV are used 12.2.9, but defined in 11.8.6.1.
Did you mean TV and TRV?
This is no different than:
- String
On the ModuleImport thread, I pretty much derailed [1] the conversation
with poor argumentation which lead to the discussion drying out. But the
more I think about it, the more important I feel my concern was so I
figured I'd have another shot at it.
The problem I was describing is that, as with
On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I find the specification of template strings still a bit difficult to
understand:
– The abbreviations TV and CV are used 12.2.9, but defined in 11.8.6.1.
Did
14 matches
Mail list logo
