domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-10-13T02:23:49.989Z)
> Now, one might argue that using the string "std:iterator" (or equivalent) >> would present a backward compatibility hazard for legacy code using objects >> as maps. I'll have to think about that one... >> > > Problem is polyfillability, and Map polyfill with O(n^2) complexity is a > loser in general. People want to use symbol in object. Downrev can mock > symbols with randomized strings. Also, `form[*]`, `document.all[*]`, etc, will all continue to use arbitrary element IDs as property names, which may bear on the argument (I'm not sure how, yet).
> Now, one might argue that using the string "std:iterator" (or equivalent) >> would present a backward compatibility hazard for legacy code using objects >> as maps. I'll have to think about that one... >> > > Problem is polyfillability, and Map polyfill with O(n^2) complexity is a > loser in general. People want to use symbol in object. Downrev can mock > symbols with randomized strings. Also, form[*], document.all[*], etc, will all continue to use arbitrary element IDs as property names, which may bear on the argument (I'm not sure how, yet). { Kevin } -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130925/f8217bbf/attachment.html>