Replace window.eval with Function

[Leilei332]

This does not solve #6839

Replace window["eval"] with Function constructor, which has better performance.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for tiddlywiki-previews ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	cb69c90
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/tiddlywiki-previews/deploys/697429681c6c9d0008312232
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-9611--tiddlywiki-previews.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[github-actions]

Confirmed: Leilei332 has already signed the Contributor License Agreement (see contributing.md)

[github-actions]

📊 Build Size Comparison: empty.html

Branch	Size
Base (master)	2448.0 KB
PR	2447.9 KB

Diff: ⬇️ Decrease: 0.0 KB

---

⚠️ Change Note Status

This PR appears to contain code changes but doesn't include a change note.

Please add a change note by creating a .tid file in editions/tw5.com/tiddlers/releasenotes/<version>/

📚 Documentation: Release Notes and Changes

💡 Note: If this is a documentation-only change, you can ignore this message.

[pmario]

...which has better performance.

What do you mean by that? Is the function call faster, or is the "jit" compiled code faster. Does it have any impact on debug ability?

[Leilei332]

...which has better performance.

What do you mean by that? Is the function call faster, or is the "jit" compiled code faster.

I did checked the docs. It did mention performance benefits:

Using the Function() constructor
The Function() constructor is very similar to the indirect eval example above: it also evaluates the JavaScript source passed to it in the global scope without reading or mutating any local bindings, and therefore allows engines to do more optimizations than direct eval().

So I think there do have some slight performance benefits.

Does it have any impact on debug ability?

After checking, using debugger keyword do work like before.