of course if you know what you are doing and you own the whole code you can use whatever you think might work, mine was about interoperability with not always so good libraries code out there.
Function name is also historically misunderstood due IE declaration VS expression bug where latter is always preferred and you have tons of `anonymous` functions instead ... you know that ;-) Cheers On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Timothy Quinn <tim.c.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: > Andrea, > > I agree about your note in the context of WAN based web applications. > Unless one can constrain the browsers supported and the programming styles > for JavaScript OOP, its would be un-dependable to use function.name > > The challenge of instanceof is that its commonly recognized as fundamentally > flawed <http://bonsaiden.github.io/JavaScript-Garden/#types.instanceof>and > not useful. Thus the issue continues for a unified way of detecting the > implemented class. JavaScript Garden's Object.prototype.toString method > also does not work in all cases. > > My original method of parsing <Object>.constructor.toString() has proven > to be very stable in LAN based applications where the application stack and > browsers are strictly constrained. My current library is for node.js so I > should be able to trust the constructor.name for a majority of objects. > I'm going to switch over to constructor.name for node.js and babysit the > logic via strong assertions in the business logic. My initial unit tests > have all passed with flying colors. > > On a related note, one can only dream that formalized OOP class > definitions can be put into the ECMAScript specification so we can move > away from the lack of consistency for OOP. The flexibility is really > hurting the language. > > - Tim > > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < > andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> although, despite being advocated differently in every book/example out >> there, many developers do this: >> >> Whatever.prototype = { >> method: function(){}, >> property: 123 >> }; >> >> forgetting to redefine the constructor property that will also be >> enumerable at that time if re-addressed. >> >> TL;DR obj.constructor.name is not reliable with non ES6 code, usually >> totally unreliable with old libraries producing always the string `Object` >> as result >> >> Cheers >> >> P.S. that check is pointless regardless, since your `constructor.name` >> might be inside a namespace you won't be able to address ... stick with >> constructors and `instanceof` you know, don't try to use ` >> constructor.name` for any sort of magic in production ... just saying >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Timothy Quinn <tim.c.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Sweet. Thanks for the quick responses =D >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Erik Arvidsson < >>> erik.arvids...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Function name is in the latest ES6 draft. >>>> >>>> On Fri Feb 07 2014 at 11:15:31 PM, Timothy Quinn <tim.c.qu...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Digging into ECMA-262, I cannot find this noted but it appears to be >>>>> implemented in V8 and SpiderMonkey. >>>>> >>>>> Mozilla states this as >>>>> non-standard<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/name>so >>>>> I am guessing that its not documented in ECMA-262. >>>>> >>>>> Is this defined in the specification or did I miss it? If not, +1 on >>>>> its standardization into the specification. >>>>> >>>>> - Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Timothy Quinn >>>>> <tim.c.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> LOL. I did not realize that was implemented already :) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> - Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Domenic Denicola < >>>>> dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> o.constructor.name seems good? >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> From: Timothy Quinn <tim.c.qu...@gmail.com> >>>>> Sent: 2/7/2014 22:26 >>>>> To: es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>>> Subject: Efficient determination of implemented class name >>>>> >>>>> An area of challenge in JavaScript is the ability to detect a >>>>> JavaScript objects implemented class name. I have done this in the past >>>>> with some success by parsing the objects constructor but I know that this >>>>> depends on the Object constructor being named and is not very efficient as >>>>> it requires the processing of a large string. >>>>> >>>>> Is it possible to include into the ECMA Specification a method of >>>>> Object that returns the constructor function name which can be >>>>> subsequently >>>>> be used as an efficient class name detection mechanism? Maybe >>>>> <Object>.getFunctionName(). >>>>> >>>>> My current current slow but steady method for detecting classes is as >>>>> follows: >>>>> >>>>> function objClassName(o){ >>>>> if(o===undefined){return "(undefined)" } >>>>> if(o===null){return "(null)" } >>>>> var a=/function\s+(.+)\s*\(.*\)\s*\{/.exec(o.constructor) >>>>> return (a && a[1] ? a[1] : "(unknown)") >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
