Normative: Define default constructors using spec steps #2216
Conversation
devsnek
added
needs consensus
ljharb
added
the
normative change
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
devsnek
force-pushed
the
default-constructor-refactor
branch
from
a199c87 to
beee2f7
Compare
|
Tests: tc39/test262#2878 |
ljharb
added
has consensus
devsnek
force-pushed
the
default-constructor-refactor
branch
3 times, most recently
from
3e64e8a to
81f24c9
Compare
devsnek
force-pushed
the
default-constructor-refactor
branch
from
81f24c9 to
df6e4ae
Compare
devsnek
force-pushed
the
default-constructor-refactor
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a99f1b2 to
6a3ac96
Compare
rwaldron
added
has test262 tests
and removed
needs test262 tests
ljharb
added
has test262 tests
and removed
needs test262 tests
devsnek
force-pushed
the
default-constructor-refactor
branch
from
624bcfc to
7768b89
Compare
ljharb
added
the
ready to merge
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
ljharb
force-pushed
the
default-constructor-refactor
branch
from
7768b89 to
d9e5692
Compare
Each time a constructor is being called without new operator, a TypeError is thrown. The TypeError should be the realm's one according to 10.2.1.5.b. Refs: https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-ecmascript-function-objects-call-thisargument-argumentslist Refs: tc39/ecma262#2216 Bug: v8:11530 Change-Id: Iff10a78e96fb547fe2062c86b9f93a30d2a8be20 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/3056830 Reviewed-by: Marja Hölttä <marja@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Marja Hölttä <marja@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#76002}
Normative: Define default constructors using spec steps tc39/ecma262#2216
Normative: Define default constructors using spec steps tc39/ecma262#2216 See also #2978
Normative: Define default constructors using spec steps tc39/ecma262#2216 Resolves #2978
Normative: Define default constructors using spec steps tc39/ecma262#2216 Resolves #2978
| @@ -25192,9 +25210,9 @@ <h1>Function.prototype.toString ( )</h1> | |||
| <p>When the `toString` method is called, the following steps are taken:</p> | |||
| <emu-alg> | |||
| 1. Let _func_ be the *this* value. | |||
| 1. If _func_ is a <emu-xref href="#sec-built-in-function-objects">built-in function object</emu-xref>, return an implementation-defined String source code representation of _func_. The representation must have the syntax of a |NativeFunction|. Additionally, if _func_ has an [[InitialName]] internal slot and _func_.[[InitialName]] is a String, the portion of the returned String that would be matched by |NativeFunctionAccessor?| |PropertyName| must be the value of _func_.[[InitialName]]. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Coming from #2608 (comment))
I see why this change was necessary: default constructors that are created using CreateBuiltinFunction now are "built-in functions" and have an [[InitialName]] slot; however they should still return the [[SourceText]] from the user's program.
But the new spec text does permit implementations to return the [[SourceText]] for basically arbitrary built-in functions now, especially for those that are implemented as ECMAScript function objects. I do not think that change was intentional, I believe that all functions which are not defined by user code (but rather, by the implementation) should have to return a string in NativeFunction format. At least this was listed as a goal in the Function.prototype.toString revision proposal.
Would it be sensible to rollback this swapping of Function.prototype.toString steps, and instead change CreateBuiltinFunction to not create an [[InitialName]] slot for default constructors?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why would implementations be forced to omit source text? An engine should always be free to provide meaningful source text in .toString if it so chooses.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's the (not unreasonable) general expectation that native functions can be detected by looking for [native code] in the toString representation, and this is used in many codebases. See https://davidwalsh.name/detect-native-function or https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6598945/detect-if-function-is-native-to-browser for reference.
The Function.prototype.toString revision proposal did mean to "standardise the string representation of built-in functions and host objects". There has gone a lot of thought into this, and there were requests to also ensure proper function name representations and even exact whitespace patterns in the NativeFunction syntax.
If you want to change this, fine, but it seems this happened without discussion in TC39, likely even by accident.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is an unreasonable expectation, since (function () {}).bind() produces the same toString representation.
To my recollection, it was very much not an accident to permit native functions to have any source text they want, as long as it's either valid ecmascript, or, the native code representation.
Fixes: #2212