Some quick thoughts.
Option (4) is a non-starter. Section numbers are not stable across spec
releases.
Option (3) doesn't sound bad, although it's not quite clear what the
criteria for putting something into objects vs runtime vs the new dir would
be. If we introduced a third category, not only s
On 5 August 2015 at 22:18, Adam Klein wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:23 AM, wrote:
>
>>
>> https://codereview.chromium.org/1274653002/diff/1/src/i18n.js
>> File src/i18n.js (right):
>>
>> https://codereview.chromium.org/1274653002/diff/1/src/i18n.js#newcode2019
>> src/i18n.js:2019: %FunctionS
On 21 April 2015 at 16:01, 'Erik Arvidsson' via v8-dev <
v8-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> I've been following along... and it seems like this is getting pretty
> messy. How are we going to spec this?
The spec isn't particularly complicated, I'll work on it.
> I still want to know how we plan
On 7 November 2014 15:52, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> The important part is that two call sites that have the same structure have
> the same identity.
Yes, but wouldn't it be more adequate to key on the structural information?
/Andreas
> Here is an example where using the call site object as a key
