Editorial: misc fixes #1636

jmdyck · 2019-07-18T17:25:16Z

.. re PR #1571
... and PR #1376.

michaelficarra · 2019-07-18T21:48:35Z

Wow I can't believe we missed these.

jmdyck · 2019-08-08T14:20:41Z

Added 3 commits relating to the merge of PR #1376.

ljharb · 2019-08-22T21:17:49Z

spec.html

@@ -19962,7 +19962,7 @@ <h1>Runtime Semantics: ClassDefinitionEvaluation</h1>
              <pre><code class="javascript">constructor() {}</code></pre>
              using the syntactic grammar with the goal symbol |MethodDefinition[~Yield, ~Await]|.
        1. Set the running execution context's LexicalEnvironment to _classScope_.
-        1. Let _constructorInfo_ be DefineMethod of _constructor_ with arguments _proto_ and _constructorParent_.
+        1. Let _constructorInfo_ be ! DefineMethod of _constructor_ with arguments _proto_ and _constructorParent_.


Using the ?/! feels awkward with this form - meaning where it doesn't look like a JS function invocation.

Well, ...

The spec already has 45 occurrences of this form.

It looks like you yourself were the first to add it: 9405a43 (lines 7060 and 7062)

If PR Add aoid and update calling conventions for directed operations #955 goes through, such invocations could be changed to a more javascript-y form anyway.

True enough :-) it still looks weird to me.

spec.html

ljharb · 2019-08-22T21:19:39Z

spec.html

@@ -24768,7 +24768,7 @@ <h1>Object.prototype.valueOf ( )</h1>
        <emu-alg>
          1. Return ? ToObject(*this* value).
        </emu-alg>
-        <p>This function is the <dfn>%ObjProto_valueOf%</dfn> intrinsic object.</p>
+        <p>This function is the <dfn>%Object.prototype.valueOf%</dfn> intrinsic object.</p>


please revert this; as long as %ObjProto_valueOf% and similar exists in the table, these prose comments referencing it should remain.

You mean references within <dfn>? I addressed that in the commit message.

I mean prose that mentions them.

Okay, but why?

This entire line isn't needed unless %ObjProto_valueOf% exists, because it's already implied by being reachable from %Object%. As such, these lines should remain untouched, until a future PR removes both them and the legacy intrinsics.

Ah! I had wondered about the tautology of X.Y is the intrinsic object %X.Y%.

But wait, in f1b22ef, you changed a bunch of prose-y references from old-style to new-style. Is there something different about them, or was that just a mistake? And do you want me to revert them back to old-style too?

I changed all of them except the ones that were in these bullet lists, defining the objects at their creation.

What about line 24664 (is the intrinsic object <dfn>%Object.prototype%</dfn>)
and line 38776 (is the intrinsic object <dfn>%AsyncFunction.prototype%</dfn>)?

oops, looks like i mistakenly changed those. sorry for the confusion

ljharb · 2019-08-22T21:19:52Z

spec.html

@@ -25819,7 +25819,7 @@ <h1>Number.prototype</h1>
      <h1>Properties of the Number Prototype Object</h1>
      <p>The Number prototype object:</p>
      <ul>
-        <li>is the intrinsic object <dfn>%NumberPrototype%</dfn>.</li>
+        <li>is the intrinsic object <dfn>%Number.prototype%</dfn>.</li>


same here, and throughout.

jmdyck · 2019-08-25T01:42:09Z

Force-pushed the branch. The only new things are the last two commits, which should resolve recent discussions here with @ljharb.

Commit f1b22ef (tc39#1376) changed lots of intrinsic-names from old-style to new-style. But these two should have stayed old-style, so switch them back. (See tc39#1636 (comment))

jmdyck · 2019-09-16T03:36:01Z

Added a commit to fix a step-reference in Annex B.

jmdyck · 2019-09-16T03:43:24Z

If nothing else, I'd really appreciate the first commit being merged. That one missing dot is very annoying: I'm forever inserting it to get the algorithm to parse, and then removing it so that I don't commit it on some completely unrelated branch.

The ID of this section was changed, but the previous ID was not retained in "oldids".

In PR tc39#1571: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1571/files#diff-3540caefa502006d8a33cb1385720803L19940 removed the step "Assert: _constructorInfo_ is not an abrupt completion." but didn't insert the equivalent "!" on the previous line. https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1571/files#diff-3540caefa502006d8a33cb1385720803L23362 removed a ReturnIfAbrupt step, but didn't insert the equivalent '?' in the previous line. --- Commit f1b22ef (tc39#1376) changed 2 occurrences of "%AsyncIteratorPrototype% to "%AsyncIterator.prototype% but the latter assumes a well-known intrinsic named "%AsyncIterator%", which doesn't exist. This commit changes them back. --- Commit f1b22ef (tc39#1376) changed lots of intrinsic-names from old-style to new-style. But these two should have stayed old-style, so switch them back. (See tc39#1636 (comment))

In Editorial commit f1b22ef (tc39#1376): - "%<var>NativeError</var>Prototype%" changed to "%NativeErrorPrototype%", which doesn't make sense, because there's no such intrinsic. - "%<var>TypedArray</var>Prototype%" changed to "%TypedArrayPrototype%", which would be a change in semantics, which shouldn't happen in an Editorial commit. So these changes were presumably mistakes.

Commit f1b22ef (tc39#1376) changed lots of intrinsic-references from old-style to new-style. This commit changes a few more.

Commit ea16790 inserted a step, pushing the Annex B 'insertion point' from step 28 to step 29.

jmdyck · 2019-09-16T21:05:05Z

Thanks for the merge!

ljharb approved these changes Jul 18, 2019

View reviewed changes

ljharb added the editorial change label Jul 18, 2019

ljharb requested review from zenparsing and a team July 18, 2019 17:38

jmdyck force-pushed the editorial branch from d56d8d3 to 31b1a75 Compare August 8, 2019 14:18

jmdyck force-pushed the editorial branch from 31b1a75 to b2cb0f1 Compare August 22, 2019 17:04

ljharb reviewed Aug 22, 2019

View reviewed changes

jmdyck force-pushed the editorial branch from b2cb0f1 to 39b5fe3 Compare August 25, 2019 01:39

ljharb requested a review from a team August 29, 2019 17:25

jmdyck force-pushed the editorial branch from 39b5fe3 to 6e47023 Compare September 16, 2019 03:31

jmdyck added the spec bug label Sep 16, 2019

ljharb self-assigned this Sep 16, 2019

ljharb added a commit to jmdyck/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Sep 16, 2019

Editorial: add missing oldids from tc39#1250 (tc39#1636)

41657d1

The ID of this section was changed, but the previous ID was not retained in "oldids".

ljharb force-pushed the editorial branch from 6e47023 to 41657d1 Compare September 16, 2019 20:41

jmdyck added 5 commits September 16, 2019 13:43

Editorial: Append '.' to step (tc39#1636)

67bfb31

Editorial: use more new-style intrinsic-names (tc39#1636)

f2d550e

Commit f1b22ef (tc39#1376) changed lots of intrinsic-references from old-style to new-style. This commit changes a few more.

Editorial: Fix Annex B step number reference (tc39#1636)

0a5db75

Commit ea16790 inserted a step, pushing the Annex B 'insertion point' from step 28 to step 29.

ljharb force-pushed the editorial branch from 41657d1 to 0a5db75 Compare September 16, 2019 21:02

ljharb merged commit 0a5db75 into tc39:master Sep 16, 2019

jmdyck mentioned this pull request Jun 11, 2020

Editorial: Add auto‑linking for dotted intrinsics #2041

Closed

1 task

jmdyck mentioned this pull request Jun 23, 2023

Legacy hoisting for function arguments() {} still not correct? #991

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Editorial: misc fixes #1636

Editorial: misc fixes #1636

jmdyck commented Jul 18, 2019 •

edited

Loading

michaelficarra commented Jul 18, 2019

jmdyck commented Aug 8, 2019

ljharb Aug 22, 2019

jmdyck Aug 23, 2019

ljharb Aug 23, 2019

ljharb Aug 22, 2019

jmdyck Aug 23, 2019 •

edited

Loading

ljharb Aug 23, 2019

jmdyck Aug 23, 2019

ljharb Aug 23, 2019

jmdyck Aug 23, 2019

jmdyck Aug 24, 2019

ljharb Aug 24, 2019

jmdyck Aug 24, 2019

ljharb Aug 24, 2019

ljharb Aug 22, 2019

jmdyck commented Aug 25, 2019

jmdyck commented Sep 16, 2019

jmdyck commented Sep 16, 2019

jmdyck commented Sep 16, 2019

Editorial: misc fixes #1636

Editorial: misc fixes #1636

Conversation

jmdyck commented Jul 18, 2019 • edited Loading

michaelficarra commented Jul 18, 2019

jmdyck commented Aug 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jmdyck Aug 23, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jmdyck commented Aug 25, 2019

jmdyck commented Sep 16, 2019

jmdyck commented Sep 16, 2019

jmdyck commented Sep 16, 2019

jmdyck commented Jul 18, 2019 •

edited

Loading

jmdyck Aug 23, 2019 •

edited

Loading