Error stack

Erik Arvidsson erik.arvidsson at
Mon Jun 11 17:04:40 PDT 2012

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
> I have a sinking feeling it may be better to do just error.stackFrames, the
> new object/number/string lazy stack-trace reflection. We can model it on the
> union of error.stack implementations in the field, so those could be
> reimplemented under/on-top-of error.stackFrames. But we'll have no
> compatibility problems to sort out, and fewer complaints about the
> string-valued property (it may be fine to remain underspecified or
> unspecified).
> Your point about not violating "use strict" or elaborating too much is good,
> but I want to push back on one thing: local vars may be a bridge too far,
> especially with optimizing JITs, block-scoped let bindings, etc. Making
> arguments available is easier.
> Erik, what do you think?

Yes, at this point I'm also convince that we should provide a new
property that provides structured information of the stack trace and
not specify Error "stack" at all.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list