W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2012

Re: [whatwg] StringEncoding: encode() return type looks weird in the IDL

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:39:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CABirCh-ke81opksMoo=i-45MvwMue109dqY=fvEugV9Zh43ubA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> If that ever happens the return value can be changed at that point. It's
> silly to build in "extensibility" like this, imo, because there's
> absolutely no reason for it: changing the return value to a superclass is
> completely transparent to JS consumers.  On the other hand, there's
> certainly a drawback to having less-specific return values: it gives JITs
> less information to work with in terms of optimizing the code.
>

I didn't say it was extensibility, just a leftover from something that was
either considered and dropped or forgotten about.

-- 
Glenn Maynard
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2012 17:39:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:44 UTC