Are you in a big hurry to get this in? If not, it seems like the perfect
reason to go back to the drawing board with JClassLiteral to make it not
suck now that we have a much better idea what we really want out of it.
Otherwise, it feels an awful lot like we're piling suckitude on top of
This seems kinda hacky since you could recompute the seed func name at
compile time during GenerateJavaScriptAST?
Honestly, the way JClassLiteral works is pretty crappy... ideally you'd
rather just emit exactly what you need during GenerateJavaScriptAST anyway.
2009/3/31 b...@google.com
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
Honestly, the way JClassLiteral works is pretty crappy... ideally you'd
rather just emit exactly what you need during GenerateJavaScriptAST anyway.
^
And yes, I wrote it that way. Crappy, I mean.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
This seems kinda hacky since you could recompute the seed func name at
compile time during GenerateJavaScriptAST?
I thought about that, but discounted it because
GenerateJavaScriptAST would have to take a look at the pruned
