Right.
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(function(){}, "name") => Object {value:
"", writable: false, enumerable: false, configurable: false}
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Yury Semikhatsky <[email protected]>
wrote:
> OK, I was confused by getting "TypeError: Cannot redefine property: name"
> when executing such code but I assume that is because it is not implemented
> yet, right?
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> non-writable configurable means you can change the value.
>>
>> function f() {}
>> Object.defineProperty(f, 'name', {value: 'fff'});
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Yury Semikhatsky <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > If its read-only it doesn't seem to be addressing use cases described
>> in the
>> > bug and we still need displayName.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Feb 12, 2015 11:00 AM, "Yury Semikhatsky" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Is Function.name going to writable in ES6? MDN says that the property
>> is
>> >>> read-only.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-name
>> >>
>> >> Correction, it is configurable, non writable, which in practice means
>> you
>> >> can change the value.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> erik
>>
>
>
--
--
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.
