On Aug 14, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Yes for those whose meaning is preserved by evaluating the resulting string
> as an expression. This is true for GeneratorExpression, ClassExpression,
> ArrowFunction. It isn't for MethodDefinition, GeneratorMethod, so they would
> need to stringify into something distinct from its source string.
but we have nothing else that preserves 'super' references or that creates
non-consructable functions with non-lexical this binding. About the closest
evaluable thing I can think of is
someObject.mixin{ { <<original method source>> } )
That seems like it is going too far away from the primary use case which is
just to examine the (approximate) original source code definition of a function.
Allen
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> See
> https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-07/july-23.md#xx-review-of-proposed-features
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:function_to_string
>
> The wiki proposal says the source code must be returned in the forms of a
> FunctionDeclaration or a FunctionExpression. The meeting notes s;ay it is
> always adequate to preserve and return the original source code.
>
> What about function objects defined using any of the new syntactic forms:
> GeneratorExpression, ClassExpression, ArrowFunction, MethodDefinition,
> GeneratorMethod
>
> Presumably, the last of acceptable returned forms should include these new
> forms?
>
> Allen
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> --MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
