With ES6 and writable function name property the motivation for this is as low as ever.
Maybe we should just work on implementing ES6 logic for function name instead? On Feb 12, 2015 9:59 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Our stack getter is lazy, isn't it? I suppose if user want to receive stack > trace and set for some functions displayName then we can spend one more > moment > for return more useful stack trace. > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/919653002/diff/20001/src/messages.js > File src/messages.js (right): > > https://codereview.chromium.org/919653002/diff/20001/src/ > messages.js#newcode829 > src/messages.js:829: if (name && IS_STRING(name)) { > On 2015/02/12 14:15:29, Yang wrote: > >> I think a single IS_STRING(name) would suffice, as undefined is not a >> > String. > > Unless you want to filter out the empty string, since it evaluates to >> > false. In > >> which case it would be better to explicitly do a string length >> > comparison. > > Done. > > https://codereview.chromium.org/919653002/ > > -- > -- > v8-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev > ---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "v8-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
