Add destructure pattern parser #262
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jfmengels
force-pushed
the
destructure-pattern
branch
from
6da86b7 to
cc1b570
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In
breaking-changes-v8, we have a separate type and parser for parser destructure patterns. I figured we could backport it tomasterwithout changing the type.A benefit of having this already in the
masterbranch is that rebase of the v8 branch will be smaller too, and we can continue to improve the performance of it until v8 lands.I've updated it over successive rebases to resemble the regular
Patternparser, so it should have similar performance, or actually faster since it tries less things. My gut feeling says that this should therefore be faster, but in practice I measure a 1 to 3% performance decrease (usingfind-regressions), which I find surprising. Maybe it's not run enough times and therefore the JIT doesn't optimize as much or enough? 🤔What do you think?