Subj : Re: Proper behavior of uneval(-0.0) ?
To   : netscape.public.mozilla.jseng
From : Igor Bukanov <igor@fastmail.fm>
Date : Thu Nov 13 2003 09:28 pm

Brendan Eich wrote:

> ... 
> uneval is meant to extend toSource so that any type (object or 
> primitive) can be decompiled to a string that, when eval'd, results in 
> the original value.
> 
> With native functions, you can't write such a string, unless you simply 
> refer to the native's name, and that name is unambiguous when eval'd.  
> Natives are a hard case; objects with private data, or of a class other 
> than one of those that can represent itself in a source string form, are 
> another.  Suggestions?


What about throwing an exception from uneval if it can not do its job? 
It would allow early detection of problems with serialization via uneval.

Regards, Igor

.