905450 - Blackbox individual functions

Status: NEW

(DevTools :: Debugger, enhancement, P3)

Description

[Nick Fitzgerald [:fitzgen] [⏰PST; UTC-8]]

Sometimes you don't want to blackbox a whole source, but just a specific function. We could do something like

  function someFunc() {
    // ... do stuff somehow, we don't care it's a black box ...
  }
  someFunc.blackbox = true;

and someFunc would be considered black boxed.

Question: is it only the assigned function, or does this propagate like strict mode does? Would be fairly easy to implement either way (just walk the env chain for the latter option).

Comment 1

[Yehuda Katz]

I would think function only since it's easy enough to propagate down manually (with extra annotations) but not so easy to go the other way.

Comment 2

[Yehuda Katz]

I would think function only since it's easy enough to propagate down manually (with extra annotations) but not so easy to go the other way.

Comment 3

[Brandon Benvie [:benvie]]

While it's true that inheriting by scope would be more difficult to override (impossible without serious source rewriting really), I also think it's the common use case. Perhaps a compromise can be made, by having the value be an enumeration rather than a boolean? Something like:

> func.blackbox = "self"
> func.blackbox = "children"
> func.blackbox = "cascading"

Or whatever bikeshedding the names comes up with.

Also I'd recommend making it into a more obscure property, with the goal of eventually transitioning to using a Symbol when they become available in SpiderMonkey. "@blackbox" for now or something otherwise unlikely to accidentally ever be used.

Comment 4

[Nick Fitzgerald [:fitzgen] [⏰PST; UTC-8]]

(In reply to Brandon Benvie [:bbenvie] from comment #3)
> While it's true that inheriting by scope would be more difficult to override
> (impossible without serious source rewriting really), I also think it's the
> common use case. Perhaps a compromise can be made, by having the value be an
> enumeration rather than a boolean? Something like:
> 
> > func.blackbox = "self"
> > func.blackbox = "children"
> > func.blackbox = "cascading"

Great idea :)

"self" would be only fun

"cascading" would be like strict mode

"children" would be not func, but all of func's children?

Is that correct? "children" seems off to me... I'm not a fan, but could be convinced otherwise.

> Also I'd recommend making it into a more obscure property, with the goal of
> eventually transitioning to using a Symbol when they become available in
> SpiderMonkey. "@blackbox" for now or something otherwise unlikely to
> accidentally ever be used.

Another great idea. +1

Comment 5

[Brandon Benvie [:benvie]]

(In reply to Nick Fitzgerald [:fitzgen] from comment #4)
> "self" would be only fun
> "cascading" would be like strict mode
> "children" would be not func, but all of func's children?
> 
> Is that correct? "children" seems off to me... I'm not a fan, but could be
> convinced otherwise.

That is correct. I'm not too sure on it either, I'd probably lean toward just "self" and "cascading". I dislike the name "cascading" though, but couldn't think of a better word for "self+children".

Comment 6

[Brandon Benvie [:benvie]]

And actually it's not "self+children" but "self+all functions inside". Maybe just "self" and "cascade".

Comment 7

[cdd]

just add it, 7 years gone, this is simple -_-