W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: How to correctly spec sequences requiring an iterable

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:09:21 -0500
Message-ID: <528A57D1.2070204@mit.edu>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 11/18/13 1:05 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
>> 6) Walk through with IteratorStep/IteratorValue etc, converting each sequence element before stepping to the next one.
>> Does anyone see any obvious problems with that other than the (controversial) object check in step 1?
> Does this step 6 commit implementations to two separate loops, one to convert, and then one to actually do things with the elements?

Yes, per the discussion in the thread about that issue.

> It seems worrying to bake this performance cost into the spec for every sequence-using function

The performance cost of using the object-happy insanity that is 
IteratorStep/IteratorValue completely dwarfs the extra over an array 
here, as far as I can tell.  ;)

But maybe I misunderstand the performance cost you're worrying about?

Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 18:09:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:19 UTC