Repository navigation
Conversation
Assisted-by: claude:opus-5.5 Signed-off-by: Kevin Gibbons <bakkot@gmail.com>
V8 has a fast path for `{ value, done }` literals, but it must be that order.
Also, the ES spec technically requires that order.
Assisted-by: claude:opus-5.5
Signed-off-by: Kevin Gibbons <bakkot@gmail.com>
Apply the iterator-result-value-first lint fixer. Assisted-by: claude:opus-5.5 Signed-off-by: Kevin Gibbons <bakkot@gmail.com>
Collaborator
|
Review requested:
|
nodejs-github-bot
added
lib / src
Codecov Reportβ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #66837 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.85% 90.49% -2.36%
==========================================
Files 428 797 +369
Lines 194833 277793 +82960
Branches 30108 53361 +23253
==========================================
+ Hits 180907 251399 +70492
- Misses 13599 16801 +3202
- Partials 327 9593 +9266
π New features to boost your workflow:
|
Member
|
FYI @jasnell as the original discussion was in #63521 (comment) (also linked in PR description #63526) |
LiviaMedeiros
left a comment
LiviaMedeiros
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The performance boost looks promising. Is this applicable to IterResult?
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Contributor
Author
Assuming you mean this one, no, the objects it creates have a different prototype (to avoid |
ljharb
approved these changes
Oct 19, 2026
trivikr
added
the
request-ci
github-actions
Bot
removed
the
request-ci
Collaborator
LiviaMedeiros
approved these changes
Oct 19, 2026
LiviaMedeiros
left a comment
LiviaMedeiros
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assuming you mean this one, no, the objects it creates have a different prototype (to avoid
Object.prototype.thenpollution) and so cannot share the V8 map.
I wonder if reordering it purely for the sake of consistency would be worth the churn. Probably not (or at least not in the scope of this PR) so LGTM as is.
trivikr
added
author ready
Member
Contributor
Author
|
I can't see the benchmark; could someone relay the result? (Or give me permissions to see it.) |
Member
Benchmark Results: |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
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.
Spec requires this order, plus V8 optimizes it and not the reverse; as such this has some performance benefits (in this microbenchmark).
cc @trivikr since you added the lint rule enforcing the opposite order in #63526.