On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote: > We do not want a > non-debugger API that works only some of the time.
What we want (IMO) is an API that allows runtime diagnostics to be collected. By necessity, function arguments would be unavailable for some stack frames. This is not a new situation or a flaw in the proposal, it's a situation which exists already for the function.arguments API. > Debuggers, in contrast, > must be able to pierce the veil of "use strict". Clearly. > A debugger API is further off from standardization. Mozilla has a new one: ... This is great but pretty much unrelated - clearly we shouldn't cripple a runtime diagnostic API because there's a debugger API - these are two different use cases. Let's get concrete here - because function.arguments is actually available but not exposed by error.stack, we have implemented a system that parses error.stack, using its information to find live function instances, grabs the arguments and receiver from those and injects them into a new, enhanced stack trace which we log. And of course we have to cover the recursive case and show the arguments as not available.. Because runtime diagnostic information like this is so critical, you'll see this approach being taken by a bunch of frameworks - don't you find this distasteful and a clear indication that the standard should be exposing this information directly? _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
