- From: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:19:15 -0700
- To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
- Cc: Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Johnny Stenback <jst@mozilla.com>
On Sep 4, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: >> Just to be clear, the only reason to drop caller on collections is that it cannot be implemented in javascript? But that would continue to be the case with document.all? I am honestly not sure I understand the benefit of dropping it, especially since 3 out of 4 engines support it. > > Apart from JS implementability, it's our experience that sunk costs aren't free. If we can remove caller as much as possible, then our code gets just a bit simpler over time. Not a big deal, very much a small deal -- but worth more than epsilon. I think that's an engine specific argument -- there isn't much additional cost in JSC for instance as the "calling a random object that is callable but not a function" handling is in the same code path as "calling a random value that isn't actually callable". Also it doesn't matter what we do for IDL as JSC API/ABI allows a developer to make such objects themselves :-/ --Oliver
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 19:19:42 UTC