support sourcesContent section #37

[sokra]

see #37

[michaelficarra]

I prefer using {}.hasOwnProperty. More deterministic, fewer walks up the scope chain, fewer member accesses, shorter.

[fitzgen]

I'm fine with O.p.hasOwnProperty or {}.hasOwnProperty. Shouldn't spend too much time worrying about micro-optimizations.

[michaelficarra]

Beautiful pull request! +1.

[fitzgen]

Thank you very much for the pull request! Reviewing it now, will add comments inline...

[fitzgen]

Can you add a note about the sourcesContent property in the comment for the SourceMapConsumer constructor?

[fitzgen]

So this looks great, I would love to merge it in as soon as the little nits are taken care of, and we figure out what's up with SourceNodes and source contents.

(I know I already approved the proposed API, but I didn't think of it then, sorry!)

[sokra]

As an alternative to the additional parameter in the SourceNode constructor:

• an additional method setSourceContent(aSourceFile, aSourceContent) which propergates into a call on the resulting SourceMapGenerator.

var node = new SourceNode(); node.add("(function() {"); var content = fs.readFileSync("file.js"); var lines = content.split("\n"); lines.forEach(function(line, idx) { node.add(" "); node.add(new SourceNode(idx, 0, line, "file.js")); node.add("\n"); }); node.setSourceContent("file.js", content);

• walkSourceContents, which walks all nodes and call the parameter function with source file and content

[sokra]

I'll split the SourceNode changes into another pull request. So you may merge the remaining changes...

[fitzgen]

Thanks a lot!

[sokra]

I moved the SourceNode changes to this branch and the alternative to pull request #45 for discussion.