Move cover for void discards to more specific elements#9
Merged
Conversation
|
A preview of this PR can be found at https://tc39.es/proposal-discard-binding/pr/9. |
Closed
Collaborator
Author
|
@waldemarhorwat, do you think you might have time to review this this week? I'd like to add Discards as a late agenda item, but only if this addresses your concerns. |
waldemarhorwat
approved these changes
Jun 11, 2024
|
As far as I can tell, this seems to have fixed the |
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
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This moves the cover for
voiddiscards in destructuring out of UnaryExpression and into more specific elements where it can only be present:This approach aligns with how CoverInitializedName is handled in Object Literals.
This should hopefully address the cover grammar ambiguity with how
await voidis parsed in conjunction with the cover grammar forawait using.This also addresses an issue where we inadvertently parsed an Initializer after
voidin some destructuring contexts.Fixes #5