I don't believe we want source map involved as, as you say, that information needs to be retrieved separately. On Sep 30, 2014 5:17 AM, "Fitzgerald, Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/30/14, 3:44 AM, John Lenz wrote: > > It is a defacto standard. > On Sep 29, 2014 6:36 PM, "Brendan Eich" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Carl Smith wrote: >> >>> If the source URL hack, or some cleaner wrapper for it, was >>> standardised, it'd make all the difference. >>> >> >> Why don't we just make the source URL hack a de-facto standard? That's >> how evolution happens, in the best case. Cc'ing @fitzgen. >> >> /be >> > > I remember web compat concerns, but if Chrome is exposing the `//# > sourceURL` to the web in error stacks, maybe we can get away with it as > well. I'd defer to jorendorff's opinion on this. > > We've also discussed exposing the source mapped location of stack frames > to JS, but that's even trickier: > > * We don't do any source mapping unless devtools are open, so exposing > this would leak whether the user is using devtools or not. Not sure how > serious that is, but it makes me hesitant. On the other hand, always source > mapping seems impractical, but maybe that's a false assumption. > > * It is a nonstarter to block JS on fetching a source map, so early stack > traces would not be source mapped, while later ones would be. This sort of > non-determinism makes me feel :( We could introduce a new async method for > getting stacks and only source map for these async stacks (or make the new > method that other branches of this thread are discussing async). > > Interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on this. > > Cheers, > > Nick >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
