On Mar 3, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I like most of what you just proposed, except that I find it
surprising that a function's ".name" is not the identifier used by
".toString()" on that function. This same issue just came up on an
internal list at Google: Objecting that since ES3.1 specs that the
".name" for bound functions and literal getters and setters is not
an identifier, it would break .toString() if it were used in the
identifier position of a function's .toString().
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]
> wrote:
A quick post-script. We could also give Function.prototype.name a
different name, perhaps "identifier" if we don't want to trample
over the existing FF and Chrome implementations. Too bad "name" is
such a good name for this functionality.
The other way to reconcile this is to retreat to keeping the name
"name", but having it always agree with the identifier used the
function's .toString(). If we do this, then we should choose a good
enough identifier mangling scheme for bound functions
("bind_<original-ident>") and literal getters and setters
("get_<ident>", "set_<ident>"), and use it in both the .name and in
the identifier position of .toString(). Ugly as this is, I think
it's better than having two different names associated with the same
function by two different parts of our API merely because we
couldn't agree on one.
This position makes sense to me. Although I don't think it is a hard
requirement for the name to match the identifier used in the
toString() serialization, I think it is simpler and more consistent to
do it this way.
- Maciej
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
