On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> For each case, we should either > a) emit a string that, when evaluated as an expression in an adequately > similar lexical context, produces a function with an adequately similar > meaning, > or we should > b) emit a string that, when evaluated as an expression in any lexical > context, fails to evaluate with an early error. > > a) FunctionDeclaration, FunctionExpression, GeneratorExpression, > ClassExpression, ClassDeclaration, ArrowFunction > b?) MethodDefinition, GeneratorMethod, literal getter method, literal > setter method > For #b?, we should also think about each "problematic case" listed at < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:function_to_string>. > > For each of the members listed as #b? above, my preference would be to > move them to #a at the price of emit a string other than their source > string. But for each of them, I would find treating them as #b to be > adequate. > > What we should never do is emit a string which, when evaluated as an > expression, produces a value of unrelated meaning. > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> 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 >> >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
