oliver at apple.com
Sun Jun 10 14:44:08 PDT 2012
My original implementation in JSC was as an Array, but I found that there were sites that depended on .stack being a string if it was present. Any form of string encoding we expect to be machine parseable by necessity will require escaping and full format description. I've actually been tempted to switch JSC's current icky format into JSON on the basis that JSON is already well defined, and everyone has fast encoders and decoders for JSON these days.
On Jun 10, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon at opera.com> wrote:
>> As such, I'm somewhat dubious as to whether we can actually change the
>> format that much without breaking sites. For reference, we support
>> Error.stack (supposedly identical to SpiderMonkey in format, though
>> obviously not) and Error.stacktrace (which is meant to actually be human
>> readable). Originally, we had Error.stacktrace as Error.stack, but it just
>> broke too much (we spoof UA on some Google sites by default, and have to
>> choose whether to go down IE/Fx/WK code-path, and often all three rely upon
>> non-standard behaviour).
> This looks pretty broken to me as is. It does not seem to work correct
> for the V8 style formatting that is used by Chrome and IE.
> The thing is that software on the open web has to handle two different
> formattings already to work correctly. The reason I picked the V8
> style over the SpiderMonkey style is that the SpiderMonkey style is
> missing essential information like the column number which is a must
> these days. If we change the SpiderMonkey format we now have 3
> incompatible formattings which is even worse.
> We could give up on the stack property and introduce a new property
> that does not require parsing a string.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss