Function "name" property

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Mon Mar 2 09:22:08 PST 2015


On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:17 AM Leon Arnott <leonarnott at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> If you want both a TCP-able from and a local (most closely enclosing
>> callable thing) form then the later should also presumably also be
>> applicable at the top level of functions.
>>
>> The 'in'  meta property prefix in combination with the 'function'  prefix
>> could do that job:
>>
>>
> One thing I feel about meta-properties is that they really should have
> some connection to the keyword's normal meaning, as is true of new.target.
> "in" currently exclusively refers to inherited property access, both as an
> operator and as a for-in keyword, and repurposing it to mean "invocation"
> when there's a meta-property attached is, well, not something I'd be proud
> of explaining.
>

Strong agreement here. If `in` grows meta properties, they should by
relevant to what the `in` operator does (which may mean none at all).

Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150302/a50bbc24/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list