On May 10, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Laurens Holst wrote:
Laurens Holst schreef:
Brendan Eich schreef:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:name_property_of_functions
I did not reproduce all the details from the thread, but I tried
to capture the essential points. Please point out omissions and
errors. Thanks,
What I’m missing about Function.name is that you can only specify
it using function literals (at least, currently in Firefox I think
that is the case). It would be nice if you could also either set
this with either the Function constructor, or after the object has
been created.
Ah, I see this part is already covered by Maciej’s Function.create
semi-constructor proposal. In that case, should make sure this
Function.create also supports passing closures so that we won’t need
a Function.create2 :).
Why would we ever want to mutate a closure? Please re-read
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-March/008940.html
Maybe make the params parameter list an array so that create is less
dependant on the length of the arguments passed and more extensible.
This sounds like a good idea to me. The counter-argument is the
obligatory overhead of an array of parameter names. Others should
weigh in.
One good thing about your proposal: it avoids (or fails to reuse, on
the down side) quirky standard behavior of the Function constructor.
Did you know ES1 specifies that new Function("a,b", "a+b") creates a
function similar to function anonymous(a, b) { return a + b; }? That
string-pasting feature of the Function constructor would seem to carry
over to Function.create, at first glance.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
