I really should have checked this bit more carefully before pushing the change that ostensibly removed support. It probably interfered with rebasing half a dozen times with all the C++ification and de-macroization that's been happening in SpiderMonkey lately.

I was actually glad that it slipped away. Why do we have to lose this "feature" anyway? Naming functions is essential for debugging/profiling, and being a 1-line change, it doesn't seem to hurt code base.

Functions should have a debugName anyway, in my opinion, but this "feature" is about as ugly and nonsensical as it gets. We should get rid of it while we still can.

(In reply to comment #2) > Functions should have a debugName anyway, Yes, please file this. We should do it, JSC supports it and such a lightweight de-facto standard would be easy to standardize in Ecma TC39. http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:name_property_of_functions is the page to read and update as appropriate (it's about other aspects of "a function's name" but takes in debugName too). /be