error.stackFrames, an Array which contains one object per stack frame,
describing function name (if any), filename, line number, some kind of
instance Id (for closures), arguments, and closed-over variables would
be absolutely incredible from my POV.
Tie it up in a nice package that can be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Thanks for the quick answer!
Am 07.06.2012 20:28, schrieb Brendan Eich:
This is not a candidate for the core language standard, ECMA-262.
OK. If ECMA-262 is only about core and not the (default) library -
where could I ask then? Which body takes
Le 08/06/2012 13:53, Christian Mayer a écrit :
Thanks for the quick answer!
Am 07.06.2012 20:28, schrieb Brendan Eich:
This is not a candidate for the core language standard, ECMA-262.
OK. If ECMA-262 is only about core and not the (default) library -
where could I ask then? Which body takes
David Bruant wrote:
Indeed. Web technologies have not taken the XML turn a lot of people
expected 5-10 years ago.
I'd go further. XML failed. We founded the whatwg in 2004 (Mozilla,
Opera, Apple) because the w3c was chasing a utopian, replace-the-web,
XML dream. We saw that going nowhere;
Le 08/06/2012 16:02, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
Indeed. Web technologies have not taken the XML turn a lot of people
expected 5-10 years ago.
I'd go further. XML failed. We founded the whatwg in 2004 (Mozilla,
Opera, Apple) because the w3c was chasing a utopian,
David Bruant wrote:
From a web dev perspective, I don't think XML would have been worse or
better. People would have created an ecosystem of tools to work around
the existing technologies. This is what happened with the DOM. This is
what's happening with HTML and all the templating frameworks
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Charles Kendrick char...@isomorphic.com wrote:
I agree that something like error.stackFrames would be ideal. However
I would say the V8 stack trace API is missing 3 key things:
1. access to parameter values
2. access to local variables defined in the function
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:57 PM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
On 8 June 2012 04:28, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
- You mentioned that compatibility requires error.stack to be a string,
even though programs would really like to have a structured version. Should
we
-- Forwarded message --
From: Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
To: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Cc:
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:37:41 -0700
Subject: Error stack
I wrote a new strawman for Error stack which is now available in some
form in all major browser (if betas are
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Patrick Mueller pmue...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I'm happy with a user-land way of being able to generate
something like this, in V8:
https://gist.github.com/312a55532fac0296f2ab
You can actually do this now in userland in Chrome (except the
Hello. I am not 100% certain that this is an appropriate place to bring this
up, and I'm likewise not 100% certain that this is the kind of feedback that is
even warranted, nor am I 100% certain that this hasn't already been discussed.
However, I am at least fairly confident about all of these
On Jun 8, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Jay Freeman (saurik) wrote:
Hello. I am not 100% certain that this is an appropriate place to bring this
up, and I'm likewise not 100% certain that this is the kind of feedback that
is even warranted, nor am I 100% certain that this hasn't already been
You can get the arguments. Here's an example of getting more info out of a
try..catch: https://gist.github.com/2898384
Which results in error.stack being an array of objects like (function,
arguments, and receiver are actual function/array/object)
{
function: function,
name:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Brandon Benvie
bran...@brandonbenvie.com wrote:
You can get the arguments. Here's an example of getting more info out of a
try..catch: https://gist.github.com/2898384
Which results in error.stack being an array of objects like (function,
arguments, and receiver
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
It may well be that the initial Expression of the ArrayComprehension
productions should be an AssignmentExpression in order to avoid commas.
This is just a draft-spec grammar bug. What I implemented in
SpiderMonkey many years ago is what is grammatically necessary:
It might be out of scope, but as a developer, I would almost give my left
nut to have the kind of information in Brendan's example.
Even more so if it the browser guys made it available as an argument to the
window.onerror callback.
Wes
--
Wesley W. Garland
Director, Product Development
Once again, exposing the actual arguments, receiver and function
object references is a security issue and completely out of scope for
this. This is not related to cross domain access but related to object
capabilities.
Erik how do you reconcile this with the fact that this information can
On Jun 8, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
It may well be that the initial Expression of the ArrayComprehension
productions should be an AssignmentExpression in order to avoid commas.
This is just a draft-spec grammar bug. What I implemented in SpiderMonkey
No, this doesn't work.
When you are in the catch() block you can discover the arguments for
the function that contains the catch block and for any (non-recursive)
functions further up the stack. But you cannot discover the arguments
for functions that were on the stack when the error happened,
Oh I see, the arguments of the just function that throws is unset. I didn't
get what you were saying at first.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
It may well be that the initial Expression of the ArrayComprehension
productions should be an AssignmentExpression in order to avoid commas.
This is just a draft-spec grammar bug. What I
Almost - there are no arguments for the function that throws, as well as all
functions between the function that throws and the one that catches.
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Brandon Benvie bran...@brandonbenvie.com wrote:
Oh I see, the arguments of the just function that throws is unset. I
On Jun 8, 2012, at 5:21 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
It may well be that the initial Expression of the ArrayComprehension
productions should be an AssignmentExpression in order to avoid commas.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Charles Kendrick char...@isomorphic.com wrote:
Once again, exposing the actual arguments, receiver and function
object references is a security issue and completely out of scope for
this. This is not related to cross domain access but related to object
24 matches
Mail list logo
