Make better use of the %_FastAsciiArrayJoin function.

Make better use of the %_FastAsciiArrayJoin function.

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011-01-07 14:58:57]

LGTM.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6100005/diff/2001/src/array.js
File src/array.js (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6100005/diff/2001/src/array.js#newcode148
src/array.js:148: if (!IS_UNDEFINED(e) || (i in array)) {
If all actually used convert functions convert undefined to the empty string,
feel free to omit the (i in array) test, and document that convert isn't called
on undefined either.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6100005/diff/2001/src/array.js#newcode152
src/array.js:152: elements[i] = '';
Would it be slower to have a separate counter for inserts, and not insert empty
strings at all?
(And remember to set the length at the end).

http://codereview.chromium.org/6100005/diff/2001/src/array.js#newcode164
src/array.js:164: }
If you run backwards, you could expand the array in-place, and not allocate a
second array.
If the array had twice the size from the start, you wouldn't even need to expand
it - but you would waste some memory in some cases.

[sandholm, 2011-01-08 12:49:52]

http://codereview.chromium.org/6100005/diff/2001/src/array.js
File src/array.js (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6100005/diff/2001/src/array.js#newcode148
src/array.js:148: if (!IS_UNDEFINED(e) || (i in array)) {
On 2011/01/07 14:58:58, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
> If all actually used convert functions convert undefined to the empty string,
> feel free to omit the (i in array) test, and document that convert isn't
called
> on undefined either.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6100005/diff/2001/src/array.js#newcode152
src/array.js:152: elements[i] = '';
On 2011/01/07 14:58:58, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
> Would it be slower to have a separate counter for inserts, and not insert
empty
> strings at all?
> (And remember to set the length at the end).
You need to know where the separator goes, hence a single counter wouldn't
suffice.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6100005/diff/2001/src/array.js#newcode164
src/array.js:164: }
On 2011/01/07 14:58:58, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
> If you run backwards, you could expand the array in-place, and not allocate a
> second array.
> If the array had twice the size from the start, you wouldn't even need to
expand
> it - but you would waste some memory in some cases.

Done.