On 2014/11/30 21:32:54, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
On 2014/11/30 20:32:08, caitp wrote:
> As mentioned in the CL description, I believe the draft's behaviour
results
in
a
> quite observable difference in behaviour from the current
implementations in
> browsers.
>
> I haven't done any research to verify if that difference could break
> applications or not, but it might be good to answer those questions
here.
>
> Also as noted, this does not modify the runtime concat routine which
appears
to
> be carefully optimized for previously spec'd behaviour.
>
> There are still some issues with the subclassed-array behaviour that is
> mandated. Maybe a good place to figure that out
Frankly, not sure we want to lead the way for other implementation in this
particular case :)
Risks seem great for not much benefit. Maybe we should go back to TC39
with
this.
I was talking about it in #jslang, it looks like this behaviour has
actually not
changed from ES5 (ES262 5.1 15.4.4.4 step 5.b.iii.3) --- however yes, JSC,
SM
and V8 are all violating this, it's not clear whether it's fixable or not.
https://codereview.chromium.org/771483002/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
