Editorial: Define each thisFooValue AO in its own section
#3063
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
|
Should we capitalize the first letter of these for consistency with other AOs while we're at it? I say yes. |
|
Ah right, I meant to ask about that. |
|
That’s a lot of churn for minimal value imo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
michaelficarra
approved these changes
May 10, 2023
|
Added a commit to capitalize (Force-pushed because I rebased to main in the meantime.) |
bakkot
approved these changes
May 11, 2023
syg
approved these changes
Jul 19, 2023
michaelficarra
added
ready to merge
|
Force-pushed to resolve conflict from #3123 (re elimination of thisTimeValue). Should be okay to get "ready to merge" again. |
bakkot
added
the
ready to merge
Specifically: - thisBooleanValue - thisSymbolValue - thisNumberValue - thisBigIntValue - thisStringValue
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2023
... that I inadvertently un-defined in PR tc39#3063.
ljharb
pushed a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 16, 2023
... that I inadvertently un-defined in PR tc39#3063.
ljharb
pushed a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 16, 2023
... that I inadvertently un-defined in PR tc39#3063.
zhangenming
pushed a commit
to zhangenming/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 22, 2023
Specifically: - thisBooleanValue - thisSymbolValue - thisNumberValue - thisBigIntValue - thisStringValue
zhangenming
pushed a commit
to zhangenming/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 22, 2023
zhangenming
pushed a commit
to zhangenming/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 22, 2023
... that I inadvertently un-defined in PR tc39#3063.
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.
Specifically:
thisTimeValueSince ES6, each of these operations has been defined in the corresponding "Properties of the Foo Prototype Object" section, rather than in a section dedicated to the operation, with a structured header, as is now the norm.
Past efforts in this direction have encountered the problem of placement. E.g., in the status quo,
thisBooleanValueis defined within 20.3.3 Properties of the Boolean Prototype Object, so if you were to simply create a subsection forthisBooleanValueright there, context would suggest thatthisBooleanValueis a property of the Boolean Prototype Object.This PR solves that problem by placing each new section within the section for the corresponding
valueOfmethod, which in each case is basically just a call to thethisFooValueoperation.For Symbol
and Date, there's an "Abstract Operations" section where thethisFooValueoperation could go instead if you wanted. I like the consistency of it always being under the correspondingvalueOf.