Why function.name is not well known symbol?

[laland]

No description provided.

[UltCombo]

Do you mean Function.prototype.name or (function() {}).name? In any case, it is not a symbol, it is just a property.

[UltCombo]

Do you mean Function.prototype.name or (function() {}).name? In any case, it is not a symbol, it is just a property.

[laland]

I mean Function.prototype.name, i know that it's not a symbol. But "name" is a such common concept for classes (that are functions in ES). Lots of classes have a "name" property to represent the names of the things, like class Hotel will have a name property to store hotel name, class Brand will have name to represent brand name, and so on... By defining name property in my class i`ll lose ability to get class name with Function.prototype.name. ES has the concept of "well known symbols", like ```@@iterator``` or ```@@toPrimitive```, which purpose was to have some internal properties that can't be accidentally overriden by user. But we still have the ```Function.prototype.name```. Why it's not a ```@@name``` or ```name```?

[laland]

I mean Function.prototype.name, i know that it's not a symbol. But "name" is a such common concept for classes (that are functions in ES). Lots of classes have a "name" property to represent the names of the things, like class Hotel will have a name property to store hotel name, class Brand will have name to represent brand name, and so on... By defining name property in my class i`ll lose ability to get class name with Function.prototype.name. ES has the concept of "well known symbols", like ```@@iterator``` or ```@@toPrimitive```, which purpose was to have some internal properties that can't be accidentally overriden by user. But we still have the ```Function.prototype.name```. Why it's not a ```@@name``` or ```name```?

[michaelficarra]

This conversation should be moved to es-discuss. Please see the CONTRIBUTING.md document.

[michaelficarra]

This conversation should be moved to es-discuss. Please see the CONTRIBUTING.md document.

[UltCombo]

Oh, I see. If it is a feature request for a new symbol, then it should be moved to ES Discuss as Michael commented.

ECMAScript must have strong backwards compatibility in order to not break the web, and the name property has been there since forever. Classes also have been designed to be mostly compatible with the existing constructor patterns and avoid refactoring hazards.

So the name property cannot be removed and there's no strong motivation to add a symbol for that so far.

By defining name property in my class i`ll lose ability to get class name with Function.prototype.name.

What exactly do you mean? Assigning a name to the instance will not affect the class/constructor name:

class C {
  constructor() {
    this.name = "instance name";
  }
}

console.log(C.name); // "C"

const c = new C();
console.log(c.name); // "instance name"
console.log(c.constructor.name); // "C"

[UltCombo]

Oh, I see. If it is a feature request for a new symbol, then it should be moved to ES Discuss as Michael commented.

ECMAScript must have strong backwards compatibility in order to not break the web, and the name property has been there since forever. Classes also have been designed to be mostly compatible with the existing constructor patterns and avoid refactoring hazards.

So the name property cannot be removed and there's no strong motivation to add a symbol for that so far.

By defining name property in my class i`ll lose ability to get class name with Function.prototype.name.

What exactly do you mean? Assigning a name to the instance will not affect the class/constructor name:

class C {
  constructor() {
    this.name = "instance name";
  }
}

console.log(C.name); // "C"

const c = new C();
console.log(c.name); // "instance name"
console.log(c.constructor.name); // "C"

[laland]

Oh, looks like i missed that x_x Thanks for explanation )

[laland]

Oh, looks like i missed that x_x Thanks for explanation )