Object.prototype.inspect ?

P T Withington ptw at pobox.com
Thu Mar 12 11:57:32 PDT 2009

On 2009-03-12, at 14:28EDT, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Tobie Langel  
> <tobie.langel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is very useful to be able to specify the debugging  
>> representation of an
>> object distinctively from it's toJSON or toString representation.
> No doubt.  I've implemented similar functionality on every serious
> JavaScript project I've done.

Same here, but I bet I did it differently.  Which makes me think this  
is _not_ an area for standardization.  As long as there is a standard  
way to enumerate the properties of an Object and a standard way to  
determine an Object's 'class' (i.e., constructor, which you can only  
do in ES3 if you annotate each object yourself), you can write your  
own inspect and this is a dandy place to allow innovation, IMO.

toSource or repr can learn from Lisp, but if you really want to do it  
right, we have along way to go.  There is a big difference between  
being able to inspect/debug an object for human legibility and  
expecting that you can convert an object to a source expression that  
when evaluated will be "equal" to the original object (for some  
definition of equal!).

More information about the Es-discuss mailing list