Normative: continue labels should not pass through blocks
#2482
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
added
the
normative change
|
chakracore scares me |
|
What's the result of Chakra and GraalJS? (Chakra on my computer always produce syntaxerror) |
|
I got consensus for the normative change implied by this PR at TC39 today. |
jugglinmike
added a commit
to tc39/test262
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2021
Normative: continue labels should not pass through blocks tc39/ecma262#2482
|
Test under review here: tc39/test262#3180 |
rwaldron
pushed a commit
to tc39/test262
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 7, 2021
Normative: continue labels should not pass through blocks tc39/ecma262#2482
michaelficarra
approved these changes
Sep 9, 2021
bakkot
added
ready to merge
ljharb
force-pushed
the
block-continue
branch
from
dd8d4cb
to
23ac241
Compare
mathiasbynens
pushed a commit
to mathiasbynens/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2021
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #2481. Without this, the spec permits
lbl : { for ( ;; ) continue lbl ; }, contrary to all implementations I have on hand.There's a few different productions which would work here - adding a definition for any of
BlockStatement : Block,Block : { StatementList },StatementList : StatementListItem, orStatementListItem : Statementwould work, in addition toStatement : BlockStatementas chosen in this PR. I thinkStatement : BlockStatementis clearest, but it doesn't really matter.