On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Simon Sapin wrote:
> JavaScript strings, however, can. (They are effectively potentially
> ill-formed UTF-16.) It’s possible (?) that the Web depends on these
> surrogates being preserved.
It's clear that JS programs depend on being able to hold unpaired
surrogates
On 10/5/14, 7:51 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
Are there any plans to eliminate the copies in Gecko?
No. Measurement showed that in practice the cost of copying short
strings, which most of these are, is very low. For large strings you do
end up having to copy, but keep in mind that Gecko used
On Oct 5, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/5/14, 2:27 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
>> I am opposed to anything that requires string copies between the DOM and JS
>
> The only way to do that with SpiderMonkey in its current state is to use
> JSString for your string type. You cannot
On Oct 5, 2014, at 3:13 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
> On 10/5/14 3:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 10/5/14, 2:27 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
>>> I am opposed to anything that requires string copies between the DOM
>>> and JS
>>
>> The only way to do that with SpiderMonkey in its current state is
On 10/5/14 3:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 10/5/14, 2:27 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
I am opposed to anything that requires string copies between the DOM
and JS
The only way to do that with SpiderMonkey in its current state is to use
JSString for your string type. You cannot safely grab the c
On 10/5/14, 2:27 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
I am opposed to anything that requires string copies between the DOM and JS
The only way to do that with SpiderMonkey in its current state is to use
JSString for your string type. You cannot safely grab the chars from a
SpiderMonkey string and hold
On Oct 5, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Ms2ger wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/05/2014 08:27 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
>> If JS can’t handle WTF-8 natively, then what’s the benefit of
>> using it? I am opposed to anything that requires string copies
>> between the DOM and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/2014 08:27 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
> If JS can’t handle WTF-8 natively, then what’s the benefit of
> using it? I am opposed to anything that requires string copies
> between the DOM and JS, unless there’s some really great overriding
> reas
If JS can’t handle WTF-8 natively, then what’s the benefit of using it? I am
opposed to anything that requires string copies between the DOM and JS, unless
there’s some really great overriding reason.
Cameron
On Oct 5, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Simon Sapin wrote:
> We’ve discussed using UTF-8 interna
We’ve discussed using UTF-8 internally for strings in Servo, but
well-formed UTF-8 can not represent surrogate code points.
JavaScript strings, however, can. (They are effectively potentially
ill-formed UTF-16.) It’s possible (?) that the Web depends on these
surrogates being preserved.
So i
10 matches
Mail list logo
