I'd have an objection. Function name inference has already broken my code - luckily only tests so far, that i know of - and doing it more often would break more of it.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:26 AM, T.J. Crowder < [email protected]> wrote: > Two questions on the minor issue of the following not assigning a name > to the function: > > ```js > obj.foo = function() { }; > ``` > > 1) Am I correct that the only reason it doesn't (in spec terms) is > that Step 1.e. of [Runtime Semantics: > Evaluation](https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec- > assignment-operators-runtime-semantics-evaluation) > reads > > > If IsAnonymousFunctionDefinition(AssignmentExpression) and > IsIdentifierRef of LeftHandSideExpression are both true, then > > and that changing that to > > > If IsAnonymousFunctionDefinition(AssignmentExpression) is true and > either IsIdentifierRef of LeftHandSideExpression is true or > IsPropertyReference of LeftHandSideExpression is true, then > > would mean it would assign the name `foo`? (The subsequent step > getting the name to use already uses GetReferencedName, which works > for property references as well as identifier references.) > > 2) Are there any objections to closing this gap in how function names > are assigned? > > -- T.J. > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
