-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 115
Editorial: Add "!" before infallible calls #660
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
4386a9a
Editorial: Add "!" before infallible calls
gibson042 57c4f62
Editorial: Add a missed "!"
gibson042 129f005
Editorial: "!"-prefix ArrayCreate calls
gibson042 5c2d492
Editorial: "!"-prefix OrdinaryObjectCreate calls
gibson042 e366e56
Editorial: Replace errant %ObjectPrototype% with %Object.prototype%
gibson042 60e5114
Editorial: "!"-prefix calls relating to ListFormat
gibson042 e1cfbad
Editorial: "!"-prefix CreateArrayFromList calls
gibson042 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
given 262's completion reform, where most AOs don't need to return completions, would it make more sense to update 402 to match rather than adding a bunch of prefixes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, quite possibly. Do you have a sense of what that would like like here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I’d expect a separate PR that updates every AO to use the new signature, and ecmarkup will enforce that only those that return completion records are used with the ? or ! prefix - and predicates all don’t.
It’s probably a good amount of work, but it’s also probably a good idea to do before 2022, so the two 2022’s can match.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We're hoping for the upcoming TC39 plenary to approve the 2022 spec, and my other open PRs have more material impact. I'd therefore like ECMA-402 completion reform to follow those, but only one is considered necessary for the 2022 edition so there probably won't be time to make the cutoff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
that makes sense, but i'm not actually sure the 402 spec is valid anymore since the implicit completion rules for AOs in the 262 spec it relies on no longer exist.
in other words, i'm not sure the 402 2022 spec can be cut until the completion reform is done :-/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given that the use of completion records in 262 was technically "invalid" for years, I don't think completion reform needs to block cutting the 2022 edition unless the current state is actually unclear to human readers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How was it invalid?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Completion records were described as only containing ECMAScript language values, but held many other types of values.
(Also the "Any reference to a Completion Record value that is in a context that does not explicitly require a complete Completion Record value is equivalent to an explicit reference to the [[Value]] field of the Completion Record value unless the Completion Record is an abrupt completion." wasn't really precise enough to be meaningful.)