name property for built-in functions??

Maciej Stachowiak mjs at
Thu Mar 5 17:34:23 PST 2009

On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Jeff Watkins wrote:
>> Can I suggest that allowing writing to name may be helpful when  
>> creating transparent wrapper functions?
>> We do a lot of this:
>> function wrapWithChangeNotification(key, fn)
>> {
>> 	return function()
>> 	{
>> 		this.willChangeValueForKey(key);
>> 		var result= fn.apply(this, arguments);
>> 		this.didChangeValueForKey(key);
>> 		return result;
>> 	}
>> }
>> I'd love it if I could set the name on the new function to match  
>> the original function.
> Why? I mean, do you expect to see that assigned name in a future  
> toString() result?
> The integrity of name reflecting the declared identifier seems worth  
> something. Is this a case where anonymous function objects should  
> have no name property at all, allowing you to create one (even with  
> high integrity, using ES3.1's Object.defineProperty), while named  
> function expressions and function definitions should induce a  
> function object with a readonly name property?
> We could certainly change Mozilla's implementations to allow name to  
> be written but there's a tension here between integrity and  
> mutability. It seems worth a bit more discussion.

The authors of Objective-J and the Capuccino framework have asked us  
to either make mutable or else provide a way to  
construct a function with a provided name. Since they use language  
translation, they would like the debugger and other tools to reflect  
the original declared names such as "[MyClassName  
methodWithParam:andStuff:]", in other words Objective-C looking  
methods. I don't know if language translation is the world's greatest  
thing but it seemed like a valid use case to me when they suggested it.


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list