On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:13 PM, James Burke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:24 PM, James Burke <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is this an acceptable use of Function.prototype.toString? What > > problems would there be now or in the future? > > For the record, the PlayStation 3's browser returns a > Function.prototype.toString like: > > function (require, exports, modue) { /*-2134160600*/ } > I made a list of few other representations some time ago — http://perfectionkills.com/those-tricky-functions/ — where you can see how they range from modified identifiers, to modified (or omitted) function bodies, to even crazier extensions like preserving parenthesis and comments when function is within a grouping operator (in IE)! ( /* foo bar */ (((function f(){}) /* baz qux */ ))); // results in "( /* foo bar */ (((function f(){}) /* baz qux */ )))" (extension is gone in IE9, IIRC) Non-standard nature of `Function.prototype.toString` return value, coupled with this variation in practice is the reason I avoid (and never recommend) function decompilation in context of general browser scripting. P.S. It's worth mentioning that bound functions return host-objects-like "function(){ [native code] }" representation in at least 3 (IIRC) major implementations ATM — IE9, FF4 and one of nightly WebKit or Chrome. (function(){}).bind({}) + ''; // returns something like "function () { /n [native code] /n }" Perhaps something that could also use standardization. [...] -- kangax
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
