There is long-standing precedent for the plain identifier:
js> Array.prototype.toString.name
toString
What should (new Function).name or (equivalently) Function().name
return? Precedent in some engines:
js> (new Function).name
anonymous
An anonymous function expression returns the empty string in some
implementations:
js> (function(){}).name
js> typeof (function(){}).name
string
js> (function(){}).name.length
0
/be
(Is "printString" a VB-ism? ;-)
On Feb 28, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Because we have introduced a “name” property for function objects we
have to specify what values the built-in functions in Section 15
each have for this property. Note that the value of this property
is intended to be a descriptive name and is not necessarily a simple
identifier. We have already taken advantage of this in specify the
“name” of functions created using Function.prototype.bind.
So what should name property values be for a built-in function such
as Array.prototype.printString? The straight forward thing to do is
to say it is “printString”. However, it would be potentially more
useful for debugging purposes if it was “Array.prototype.printString”.
Thoughts? I’m probably going to specify that simple identifier
unless I hear a strong response in favor of using the fully
qualified name.
Allen
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
