P T Withington
ptw at pobox.com
Fri Mar 13 06:22:48 PDT 2009
On 2009-03-13, at 01:04EDT, Brendan Eich wrote:
> To your point, which I addressed in different terms: we could make
> Object.prototype.toString look for [[Class]].[[Constructor]].name
> where [[Constructor]] is unnameable-by-script and references the
> class's constructor function. This would satisfy Tobie's wish while
> avoiding the mutation hazards inherent in using constructor.name.
> Either solution wants the function name property to be standard.
Can we go one step further? I want (something like)
Object.getOwnConstructor() to return Object.[[Class]].
[[Constructor]]. I want to be able to get a handle on the constructor
of the object, not just the name of that constructor (since in some
cases that name might be 'anonymous' which doesn't help me). Is that
More information about the Es-discuss