Just for a bit of context, can you elaborate on how this broke your code? Thanks
On 27 January 2017 at 16:56, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
