On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Mar 4, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Jeff Watkins wrote:
Can I suggest that allowing writing to name may be helpful when
creating transparent wrapper functions?
We do a lot of this:
function wrapWithChangeNotification(key, fn)
{
return function()
{
this.willChangeValueForKey(key);
var result= fn.apply(this, arguments);
this.didChangeValueForKey(key);
return result;
}
}
I'd love it if I could set the name on the new function to match
the original function.
Why? I mean, do you expect to see that assigned name in a future
toString() result?
The integrity of name reflecting the declared identifier seems worth
something. Is this a case where anonymous function objects should
have no name property at all, allowing you to create one (even with
high integrity, using ES3.1's Object.defineProperty), while named
function expressions and function definitions should induce a
function object with a readonly name property?
We could certainly change Mozilla's implementations to allow name to
be written but there's a tension here between integrity and
mutability. It seems worth a bit more discussion.
The authors of Objective-J and the Capuccino framework have asked us
to either make Function.name mutable or else provide a way to
construct a function with a provided name. Since they use language
translation, they would like the debugger and other tools to reflect
the original declared names such as "[MyClassName
methodWithParam:andStuff:]", in other words Objective-C looking
methods. I don't know if language translation is the world's greatest
thing but it seemed like a valid use case to me when they suggested it.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
