On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> 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. -- erik _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
