Re: arguments.callee and strict mode

On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: We use arguments.callee.caller in a few places to get a call stack and we rely on this feature to be able to analyze errors in production. Spidermonkey has a stack property on the error object so we are ok in Firefox. Until all js engines have

Re: arguments.callee and strict mode

On 11/03/2009, at 1:40, Erik Arvidsson wrote: We use arguments.callee.caller in a few places to get a call stack and we rely on this feature to be able to analyze errors in production. Spidermonkey has a stack property on the error object so we are ok in Firefox. Until all js engines have this

Re: arguments.callee and strict mode

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:11, Brendan Eich wrote: > Named function expressions and definitions are better, no question (now that > ES3.1 adopts the de-facto fix pioneered by Opera of not binding a named > function expression's name in an Object instance created as if by "new > Object"). I pointe

Re: arguments.callee and strict mode

FWIW, replacing arguments.callee with named function to make jQuery cajole was very straightforward. On Mar 10, 2009, at 19:11 , Brendan Eich wrote: On Mar 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: On Mar 10, 2009, at 18:26 , Brendan Eich wrote: Before giving callee the boot, has anyone in

Re: arguments.callee and strict mode

On Mar 10, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: On Mar 10, 2009, at 18:26 , Brendan Eich wrote: Before giving callee the boot, has anyone interacted with Ajax library authors? Here (excluding lines longer than 256) are uses of callee in Dojo, Ext, JQuery, MochiKit, and Prototype: We've c

Re: arguments.callee and strict mode

On Mar 10, 2009, at 18:26 , Brendan Eich wrote: Before giving callee the boot, has anyone interacted with Ajax library authors? Here (excluding lines longer than 256) are uses of callee in Dojo, Ext, JQuery, MochiKit, and Prototype: We've completely removed uses of arguments callee from the

Re: arguments.callee and strict mode

On Mar 10, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: In reviewing the spec. I was reminded that arguments.callee is disabled within strict mode functions.  Do you recall why you wanted to do this, other than g

RE: arguments.callee and strict mode

>>-Original Message- >>From: Douglas Crockford [mailto:doug...@crockford.com] >>It is not the only way. You can write an annonymous function that >>returns >>a named, recursive function. So arguments.callee is not required for >>that unlikely case. >Not exactly equivalent if you are using

RE: arguments.callee and strict mode

Crockford; David-Sarah Hopwood; es-discuss@mozilla.org Subject: Re: arguments.callee and strict mode On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock mailto:allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com>> wrote: In reviewing the spec. I was reminded that arguments.callee is disabled within strict mode fun

RE: arguments.callee and strict mode

>-Original Message- >From: Douglas Crockford [mailto:doug...@crockford.com] >It is not the only way. You can write an annonymous function that >returns >a named, recursive function. So arguments.callee is not required for >that unlikely case. Not exactly equivalent if you are using the fun

RE: arguments.callee and strict mode

> It occurs to me, that using arguments.callee is the only way > to express recursion within a function created using the Function > constructor and that use of the Function constructor (rather than > eval) should probably be encouraged for dynamically constructing > functions from source code

Re: arguments.callee and strict mode

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock < allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com> wrote: > In reviewing the spec. I was reminded that arguments.callee is disabled > within strict mode functions. Do you recall why you wanted to do this, > other than general dislike of arguments. > POLA. A fre