On 2015/06/30 18:11:05, binji wrote:
I agree, having a function that doesn't close over its lexical
environment is
weird. But having to write the Worker as a string is pretty horrible.
(You'd be surprised how much we already use code in strings for eval for
various
reasons in our test suite, so this would not be introducing particularly new
kind of horribleness.)
Perhaps you're right that it's better to make the stringification of the
function explicit. I'm happy to do that in the next CL if everyone
prefers it.
Right, I will ask around tomorrow. I only talked to Benedikt and he also
thought
the current way is confusing (and less consistent with the standard web
workers).
In any case, this CL still LGTM. I totally agree that if we go ahead with
the
Worker(<string>) constructor, it should be a separate CL.
Thanks!
https://codereview.chromium.org/1216023003/
--
--
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.
