Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> writes:
> On 9 May 2013 14:58, Gareth Smith <gds at doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In general, I think the message I'm getting from you is that when it
>> comes to for-in, a more permissive reading of the standard is likely to
>> be more accurate.
>>
>> Does this seem fair?
>
> Yes, I would say so. Moreover, I wouldn't even assume that for-in
> semantics is deterministic for any given VM -- it can change depending
> on dynamic optimisations and representation changes.

Thanks, that's great.

Our current candidate formalism does indeed allow for non-determinism :)

G

Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> writes:
> On 9 May 2013 14:58, Gareth Smith <gds at doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In general, I think the message I'm getting from you is that when it
>> comes to for-in, a more permissive reading of the standard is likely to
>> be more accurate.
>>
>> Does this seem fair?
>
> Yes, I would say so. Moreover, I wouldn't even assume that for-in
> semantics is deterministic for any given VM -- it can change depending
> on dynamic optimisations and representation changes.

Thanks, that's great.

Our current candidate formalism does indeed allow for non-determinism :)