Stage 3 syntax review

[waldemarhorwat]

The syntax seems fine. I have one question: Why can't the list of AssertEntries be empty?

[waldemarhorwat]

Sorry, this should be stage 3 review not 2.

[ljharb]

why have assertion syntax if you aren't asserting anything?

there is export {} and const {} = obj, but both seem pretty confusing to have allowed :-/

[michaelficarra]

@ljharb Maybe you've commented them all out.

[dandclark]

Normally I'd be skeptical about allowing empty AssertEntries given the potential for confusion and the minor extra complexity with minimal benefit. In other contexts people probably wouldn't expect an empty assert statement/function to be permitted.

But since we allow import {} from "./foo.js", export {}, etc I think it might make sense to allow an empty AssertEntries for consistency's sake:

import { } from "./foo.js" assert { }; // No error. Would be potentially surprising if the first
                                       // set of empty brackets was allowed but not the second.

[dandclark]

If we want to go this route, I created #95. Other proposal champions, @ljharb, any strong opposition to this? I'm lightly in favor for the consistency reason stated in my previous comment.

[MylesBorins]

I'm going to reopen this for now as I don't think we've gotten a +1 for all review. @dandclark please reclose if that was a mistake

[waldemarhorwat]

The revised syntax looks good.

[littledan]

The proposal reached stage 3, so re-closing