El 15/09/2008, a las 23:23, Brendan Eich escribió:
> 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
Ok ok, never mind. After all if I don't want to name an unnamed
(recursive) f() I can still write something like :
(foo= function () { this.call(this) }).call(foo);
:-)
but (function () { callee() })() looked much better...
Thanks,
--
Jorge.
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
