On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon <[email protected]> wrote: > As such, I'm somewhat dubious as to whether we can actually change the > format that much without breaking sites. For reference, we support > Error.stack (supposedly identical to SpiderMonkey in format, though > obviously not) and Error.stacktrace (which is meant to actually be human > readable). Originally, we had Error.stacktrace as Error.stack, but it just > broke too much (we spoof UA on some Google sites by default, and have to > choose whether to go down IE/Fx/WK code-path, and often all three rely upon > non-standard behaviour). > > [1]: > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/releases/2.4/user/src/com/google/gwt/core/client/impl/StackTraceCreator.java
This looks pretty broken to me as is. It does not seem to work correct for the V8 style formatting that is used by Chrome and IE. The thing is that software on the open web has to handle two different formattings already to work correctly. The reason I picked the V8 style over the SpiderMonkey style is that the SpiderMonkey style is missing essential information like the column number which is a must these days. If we change the SpiderMonkey format we now have 3 incompatible formattings which is even worse. We could give up on the stack property and introduce a new property that does not require parsing a string. -- erik _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
