Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] Mark occurances and type inference

I think JSDT’s reliance on type information is something borrowed from JDT.
I do not think it is adding value to what JSDT offers.

+1 for just marking the symbol occurrence. I have also checked VS code and they seem to have a completely text based search around mark occurrences. So if you select an identifier say named “syntax” it will also be marked on a string “This is a syntax error”.

I guess we can open a bugzilla for this to follow up.


On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:12, Eugene Melekhov wrote:

Hi all,

I've been working on implementing new binding resolver based on ast dom model as a replacement for DefaultBindingResolver that uses internal compiler data unavailable since we've switched to esprima parser.

Since this work had been started in order to fix "Bug 489897 - Mark Occurrences is not working on JavaScriptEd..." I had to look into JavaEditor and I've noticed one thing which is not actually obvious for me.

JavaSriptEditor preferences page for 'Mark Occurrences' has several check-boxes for configuring what to mark: 'Functions' 'Constants' 'Local variables' 'Function exits' 'Targets of break and continue statements'

JavaSriptEditor tries to find out what kind of symbol(variable, function, type) is at cursor position then analyses type binding and so on and so forth. I wonder if it all makes sense actually? Look at the sample code at the end of
the message.

What is 'a' in function bar? Function or variable? What is 'c' in that function? Function or variable? What is the type of 'c' ? Number or function, What is the type of 'd' ? Undefined or Object or Array or what?
What are 'l1' , 'l2' in function 'barr' What is 'x' at global scope?

I'm not criticizing. I just believe that dynamic nature of JS makes such attempts to strongly rely on Type useless. JS "type" of symbol is rather a Set of Probable 'types' and we can't tell actually whether symbol is variable or
'function'. Perhaps we can say call site...

Nevertheless, it's another long story; I actually want to ask if it makes sense to bother with all that complexities? Wouldn't be better to just mark 'symbol occurrences'. It means marking symbol declaration and symbol references depending on scope? It seems more clear for me and besides it's cheaper/faster from computation point of view.

I'm not that familiar with other JS editors/IDEs, so I can't tell what they do in such case. Orion though just marks
'symbol occurrence' as far as I can see.

What do you think?

// =======  Here is sample code mentioned above =============
function foo (a,b) {
  return a+b;

function bar(a, b, c, d) {
  if (typeof (c) == 'function') {
    return c(a,b);
  } else if (typeof(a) == 'function'){
    return {a: d.a, b: d[c], c: d["c"], d: a(b,c)};


function barr() {
  var l1 = 10, l2 = 20;

  l1: for(var i=1; i < 10; i++) {
    l2: for(var j=1; j < 10; j++) {
      if (j==5) {
        break l1;
      } else if ( j==6) {
        continue l2;
  return l1+l2;


var x = foo;

x = x(1,2);

console.log("x = "+x);

var v = foo(1,2);

var w = bar(3,4,foo)

var x = bar(5,6, function (a,b) {return a+b;});

var y = bar(7,8, (a,b) => a+b);

var z = bar((a,b) => a+b, 9, 10, {a:11, 10: 12, c: 13});

console.log("v = "+v);
console.log("w = "+w);
console.log("x = "+x);
console.log("y = "+y);
console.log("z = {"+z.a+","+z.b+","+z.c+","+z.d+"}");

Eugene Melekhov

wtp-dev mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top