Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Fri Mar 13 15:04:18 PDT 2009
I don't understand what is being proposed. In ES3.1 terms, what would
Object.getConstructor do? [[Class]].[[Constructor]].name makes no
sense, since the value of [[Class]] is a string.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2009, at 6:22 AM, P T Withington wrote:
>> 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 a possibility?
> For Harmony, sure. It would be Object.getConstructor, I think, since there
> is no connotation of "get property from this object or an object on its
> prototype chain", but Allen may have a different thought.
> For ES3.1 the time to propose this was last year when the spec was in flux,
> freely available for review, and not being frozen for implementation.
> Sure, we could "sneak" Object.getConstructor in, but that is a good way to
> be late and bloated if done for N such "easy additions", N growing quite
> large as we go. Maybe we can agree to hold the line "just this once". I'm
> skeptical; a precedent often takes on a life of its own.
> Es-discuss mailing list
> Es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the Es-discuss