Editorial: normalize wording used to apply syntax-directed operations #1571
Conversation
This file contains 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
ljharb
approved these changes
Jun 7, 2019
jmdyck
reviewed
Jun 12, 2019
michaelficarra
force-pushed
the
normalise-syntax-directed-operations
branch
from
8414752 to
3562a44
Compare
ljharb
changed the title
michaelficarra
added a commit
to michaelficarra/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2019
zenparsing
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2019
ljharb
force-pushed
the
normalise-syntax-directed-operations
branch
from
3562a44 to
2b067ea
Compare
Merged
ljharb
pushed a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 16, 2019
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))
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
?shorthand for syntax-directed operations where applicableI was a bit conflicted between the terse "Operation of |NonTerminal|" and the verbose "the result of applying Operation {for,of,to} |NonTerminal|". I'm happy either way.
I left "the result of evaluating" alone, both for wording normalisation and for usage of
?. Even though it's just another syntax-directed operation, it is invoked using a special form. If the editors decide that we should include evaluation in this normalisation, I'll make the change.