On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Russell Leggett <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:32 AM, John J Barton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Mike Samuel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> 2011/10/4 Russell Leggett <[email protected]>: > >> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Mike Samuel <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> No it doesn't. > >> >> > >> >> Just walk the object graph starting from the root object and let the > >> >> set of all reachable symbols be A. > >> >> Load jQuery > >> >> Walk the object graph again letting the set of all reachable symbols > be > >> >> B. > >> >> > >> >> The public API of jQuery is then (B - A). > >> > > >> > That's works fine under 2 conditions: > >> > > >> > 1. You're willing to execute code instead of statically analyze it > >> > 2. You're capable of executing that code in isolation. > >> > >> This should be true for most libraries out there. > >> It obviously doesn't hold for user code and definitely not for all > >> code in an IDE since IDE's have to deal with code during editing. > > > > I'm not a jQuery person, but as far as I can tell jQuery introduces only > one > > global value so the jQuery API is just the properties of that object at > the > > point in the program where the developer needs to use jQuery. You don't > > have to execute code and the only graph you need to walk is the > properties > > of one object. > > If you looked at the code for more than 5 minutes, you'd see that the > jQuery codebase, while interesting to look at, would be ridiculously > hard to statically analyze without understanding jQuery conventions. > The bulk of the methods are added through calls to 'jQuery.extend(...' > and 'jQuery.fn.extend(...' > > Sure, that's the way lots of JS code works, which is why I think IDEs based on static analysis are doomed. jjb > > > > jjb > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
