Sorry, your use of closure was unclear enough that I went with door #1
(mutating a closure by giving it an intrinsic name). I did wonder if
you meant door #2 (creating an inner scope function other than by
eval), and you did, so let's deal with that:
On May 10, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Laurens Holst wrote:
…by using a function constructor:
function a() {
var x = 1;
return Function.create('y', ['z'], {x: x}, 'return x+z;');
}
var y = a();
y(2);
No, that would not be nice. Consider the case where the created
function mutates x. Consider obfuscation or infeasible-to-analysis
arbitrary computation of the string parameters to Function.create, or
even of the reference to Function.create that function a calls.
Only eval has to exact the stupid-taxes here. Let's not have another
set of tax-hikes.
Or perhaps you would rather want to pass a reference to the local
scope (‘arguments’?) instead of an individual variables.
Write a closure, or pay the eval tax. Why should Function.create make
inner-scope closures? What is the real-world use case that can't use
eval?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
