On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, James Greene wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Nathan Broadbent wrote: > > > > > > > > The current information passed to window.onerror rarely provides > > > > sufficient information to find the cause of the error. The column > > > > number argument will be a big step forward, but a stack trace would > > > > be especially useful. I would like to add my support for improving > > > > the window.onerror arguments, with a fifth argument for stack trace. > > > > Is there anything that James or I could do to move this discussion > > > > along? > > > > > > This seems useful, but I don't think it's specific to window.onerror. > > > I would recommend approaching the es-discuss list about this. > > > > I'm curious: would do you say that? All evergreen browsers already > > include a `stack` property on their core `Error` prototypes, so it seems > > to me that the only thing preventing us from getting that useful > > information for unhandled errors is the fact that `window.onerror` does > > not provide us with a real Error object instances (or even fake ones > > with shell properties in the case of cross-domain errors). > > Ah, I was unaware of Error.stack. Interesting! >
There is no static property with the name "stack" on the [[Global]] built-in Error object, nor is the property added to Error.prototype. In v8, SpiderMonkey and JSC, the stack property appears on the actual instance object initialized by Error. Rick