On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
> El 15/09/2008, a las 22:32, Jon Zeppieri escribió:
>
>>> IOW, could we have instead a ('standalone') 'callee' property (that
>>> isn't to be innocently passed on) ?
>>>
>>
>> ...as a property of what?
>
> The activation object of the execution context.
I've been there, done that. Long ago, when crazy Smalltalk-ish
reflection of execution state was in vogue, SpiderMonkey grew magic
reflective properties (ugly names, such as __caller__). The compiler
would make functions enclosing such things always have an activation
object (real implementations must optimize away activation objects
for performance -- there's no other way).
Besides violating Tennent's Correspondence Principle, this was an
evil mess to implement correctly (consider all the optimizations that
had to be undone). It's not worth it, especially if you want just
callee (use a named function expression, or bind an outer lexical
name) or caller (stack inspection should be served by a carefully
designed API on the side -- "mirror" reflection, not an API on
activation objects).
I agree with Mark about callee. Just say no, if we can wean folks off
of it.
Stack backtracing deserves a separate thread.
/be
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
