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 13:51:12 -0500
Message-ID: <528A61A0.9090300@mit.edu>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 11/18/13 1:37 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> Fair enough. I think I just saw "two loops" and freaked out irrationally. Concern rescinded.


> Indeed. I didn't see performance concerns raised (even misguided ones like mine).

Again, the major performance concern is using the iterator API at all. 
It's a huge amount of overhead compared to how sequences work right now. 
  I can probably quantify that once I've tried implementing it (and then 
see whether that overhead is acceptable enough to actually make the 

> I still think only doing one iteration would be more idiomatic,

I agree.  Complications start when you have two sequence arguments and 
the like.  :(

Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 18:51:41 UTC

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