Function.prototype.toString to discover function dependencies

Leo Meyerovich lmeyerov at gmail.com
Mon Sep 20 12:37:54 PDT 2010


Perhaps worth considering for both this proposal and 'use strict' is the common (and surprising to me, actually!) use case of code partitioning tools. I suspect they might break some assumptions about how code is split into source files etc.

These tools, to minimize page/component load requirements (e.g., for large sites or bandwidth limited devices), essentially do fine grained partitions of source (generally at the function level), delaying their individual load for a more optimal order. The one I'm most familiar with, Doloto, replaces functions with stubs; the first invocation performs an on-demand load. I believe GWT and many other frameworks have something here as well.

So: would usage of 'require' and 'use strict' break these tools? Is there a feasible evolution path for updating these tools to not break use of these features? Perhaps these scenarios have already been considered -- if not, I suspect they might cause problems.

Regards,

- Leo

//also, for this particular proposal, I'd be a little worried about semantics -- e.g., should a 'require' call nestled within a conditional throw an exception?




On Sep 20, 2010, at 12:00 PM, es-discuss-request at mozilla.org wrote:

> Send es-discuss mailing list submissions to
> 	es-discuss at mozilla.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	es-discuss-request at mozilla.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	es-discuss-owner at mozilla.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of es-discuss digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Function.prototype.toString to discover function
>      dependencies (Mark S. Miller)
> 
> From: "Mark S. Miller" <erights at google.com>
> Date: September 19, 2010 12:41:02 PM PDT
> To: James Burke <jrburke at gmail.com>
> Cc: commonjs at googlegroups.com, es-discuss at mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: Function.prototype.toString to discover function dependencies
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:24 PM, James Burke <jrburke at gmail.com> wrote:
> First time posting to the es-discuss list:
> 
> Over on the CommonJS list, there is a thread about how to provide a
> module format that works in today's browsers. The traditional CommonJS
> module format cannot run in the browser via script tags without a
> transform, and some of us want a format that will work without
> transforms but can be easily hand-coded.
> 
> Tom Robinson made the following suggestion, is this an acceptable use
> of Function.prototype.toString:
> 
> require.def(function (require, exports, module) {
>    var foo = require('foo'),
>        bar = require('bar');
> });
> 
> Where require.def would call .toString() on the function passed to it,
> regexp for the require() calls, then make sure to load those
> dependencies before executing the function that defines the module.
> 
> So the toString() does not have to be an exact copy of the function,
> just enough that allows the require() calls to be found.
> 
> Hi James, at <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:function_to_string> I've been trying to state a usefully stronger but not impractically stronger spec. I like your usage pattern of "require" above, especially that it can be reliably recognized without a full lexing or parsing by regexp tricks, without getting misled by comments or quotes. (I try a similar but different pattern at <http://code.google.com/p/es-lab/source/browse/trunk/src/ses/initSES.js#276>. I like your's better.)
> 
> Given source code, of course, either recognition trick works. Given only meaning preserving source code, which is the most I was willing to propose on that strawman page, these recognition tricks fail <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:function_to_string#discussion>. Would we be willing to specify enough fidelity with the original source code that your trick would work? I don't know. Perhaps AST preserving? Perhaps preserving of some abstraction over equivalent ASTs? I would like to clean up Function.prototype.toString for ES-Harmony. Opinions?
> 
>  
> 
> I am leaving out a bunch of other stuff about the browser-friendly
> module format (for instance there is a transform for this format to
> allow grouping more than one module in a file for optimized browser
> delivery and that form does not use .toString() and this approach
> *would not* be used on minified code), but the main question for the
> es-discuss list is:
> 
> Is this an acceptable use of Function.prototype.toString? What
> problems would there be now or in the future?
> 
> What I have found so far:
> 
> The ECMAScript 3rd and 5th edition specs say the following:
> ------
> 15.3.4.2 Function.prototype.toString ( )
> 
> An implementation-dependent representation of the function is
> returned. This representation has the syntax of a FunctionDeclaration.
> Note in particular that the use and placement of white space, line
> terminators, and semicolons within the representation string is
> implementation-dependent.
> 
> The toString function is not generic; it throws a TypeError exception
> if its this value is not a Function object. Therefore, it cannot be
> transferred to other kinds of objects for use as a method.
> ------
> 
> In a 2008 es-discuss thread[1], Erik Arvidsson thought the
> "implementation-dependent" part allowed for low-memory devices to not
> keep a reversible implementation in memory.
> 
> A test was run in a few browsers to test the approach[2]: modern
> desktop browsers (including IE 6+) give a usable toString() value, and
> there are many mobile browsers that also work well: Android, iOS,
> Windows Mobile, webOS and latest BlackBerry. So far BlackBerry 4.6 and
> some version of Opera Mobile may not, and there are some like Symbian
> and Bada that have not been tested yet.
> 
> So one issue is not universal browser support, but enough of today's
> browsers both on desktop and mobile that it may make sense using it
> going forward. While the spec technically allows an implementation to
> produce something that might cause the above mentioned Function
> toString() approach to fail, it seems in practice it may be workable.
> 
> I am a bit wary of the approach, but initial testing seems to indicate
> it may work, so I am looking to have an expert review done before
> proceeding with the approach. If any of you have other other
> information or concerns it would be good to know.
> 
> James
> 
> [1 ]Thread starts with this post:
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-September/007632.html
> 
> [2] Browser test page:
> http://requirejs.org/temp/fts.html
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20100920/dc28c5be/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list