Editorial: delete some SDO cases that are covered by the chain production rule#1933
Merged
ljharb merged 1 commit intotc39:masterfrom Apr 23, 2020
Merged
Conversation
ljharb
changed the title
Member
Author
|
At today's editor call, we decided that we will try to reduce unnecessary SDO definitions, as we do in this PR, relying on the chain rule wherever applicable. |
bakkot
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2020
ljharb
force-pushed
the
chain-productions
branch
from
d999d88 to
28c3b04
Compare
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2020
PR tc39#1933 deleted SDO rules that are handled by the chain production rule, but it also deleted this one which isn't. (It has "TV" on the left and "TRV" on the right.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2020
PR tc39#1933 deleted SDO rules that are handled by the chain production rule, but it also deleted this one which isn't. (It has "TV" on the left and "TRV" on the right.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2020
PR tc39#1933 deleted SDO rules that are handled by the chain production rule, but it also deleted this one which isn't. (It has "TV" on the left and "TRV" on the right.)
ljharb
pushed a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2020
Editorial: Reinstate an SDO rule PR tc39#1933 deleted SDO rules that are handled by the chain production rule, but it also deleted this one which isn't. (It has "TV" on the left and "TRV" on the right.) Editorial: Move an <emu-note> element PR tc39#1490 (among other things) moved the evaluation semantics for ArrowFunction from the Evaluation SDO to the NamedEvaluation SDO. The accompanying <emu-note> should have moved at the same time (in particular because of the reference to "step 3"). Editorial: Delete <emu-note> in TimeClip clause PR tc39#1827 (among other things) removed step 4 from the algorithm for TimeClip, obsoleting the accompanying emu-note that describes "the point of step 4". Conceivably, the note could be reworded to describe the effect of 'ToInteger' on step 3, but I don't think it'd be worth the bother. Editorial: Change "Step 2.a" to "Step 2.b" in RepeatMatcher note PR tc39#1889 (among other things) inserted a step before the former 2.a, but didn't update the note that referenced it. Editorial: Change step 7 to step 6 in SortCompare note Commit 9c1e076 (2015-10-26) introduced the '?' abbreviation for ReturnIfAbrupt. This caused the ToString call on step 7 to move to step 6, but the note that referred to it wasn't updated. Editorial: Fix typo: "Descritor" -> "Descriptor" Editorial: Fix typo: "GeneratorObject" -> "generator object" (There's no such thing as a GeneratorObject.) Editorial: Delete "as a parameter" after "is present" (It's the only place in the spec where we use that phrasing.) Editorial: Change "which" to "that" ... in "{String,Array,Map,Set} methods which return such iterators" Editorial: Insert a comma in SetDefaultGlobalBindings() Formerly, it read like "containing" modified "the property", when it actually modified "the property descriptor". Editorial: Change "lexical environment" to "Environment Record" ... in FunctionDeclarationInstantiation, to balance the NOTE in the other arm of the if-else, and also for consistency with the NOTE at 27.a. (I should have done this in PR tc39#1697.) Editorial: Change "step 3" to "step 4" in Note ... that accompanies the NamedEvaluation semantics for ArrowFunction : ArrowParameters `=>` ConciseBody PR tc39#1870 (among other things) inserted a step before the former step 3, but didn't update the note that referenced it.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
@bakkot You may want to consider linting for these in tc39/ecmarkup#173.