- From: James Greene <james.m.greene@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:20:33 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Nathan Broadbent <nathan.f77@gmail.com>, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Ian —
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).
If I'm mistaken, please clarify. Thanks!
Sincerely,
James Greene
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@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.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 18:21:19 UTC