(ignore) Normative: Add public and private class fields#1655
(ignore) Normative: Add public and private class fields#1655ljharb merged 1 commit intotc39:masterfrom
Conversation
ljharb
added
normative change
| 1. Replace all occurances of "Return a value of type Reference..." with calls to MakeReference | ||
| 2. Rename MakeSuperPropertyReference to MakeSuperReference for consistency. | ||
|
|
||
| <emu-clause id="sec-makereference" aoid="MakeReference"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this commented clause be deleted, or uncommented?
| </emu-clause> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| 1. Replace all occurences of "Return a value of type Reference..." with calls to MakeReference |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this commented section should be uncommented or removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This still needs doing, yes. I'm holding off in case there's substantive comments that affect it.
| 1. Let _fields_ be the value of _constructor_.[[Fields]]. | ||
| 1. For each item _fieldRecord_ in order from _fields_, | ||
| 1. Perform ? DefineField(_O_, _fieldRecord_). | ||
| 1. Return. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this last step seems kind of implied to me, can/should it be removed?
|
|
||
| <emu-grammar>ClassElement : FieldDefinition `;`</emu-grammar> | ||
| <ul> | ||
| <li>It is a Syntax Error if PropName of |FieldDefinition| is `"constructor"`.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Ms2ger "class fields" has been a single proposal since before stage 3; all of it should be added in a single PR - static and instance, public and private.
| </emu-alg> | ||
|
|
||
| For all other grammatical productions, recurse on all nonterminals. If any piece returns *true*, then return *true*. Otherwise return *false*. | ||
| <emu-note type=editor>TODO: Elaborate the preceding paragraph with spec text inserted in each relevant place</emu-note> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this TODO seems like it needs doing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same: This still needs doing, yes. I'm holding off in case there's substantive comments that affect it.
littledan
added
has test262 tests
and removed
needs test262 tests
|
Deferring to #1668; I’ll keep this one up to date. |
ljharb
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Step 2.12.2.8.a.ii and 2.12.2.8.a.iii are missing in this PR yet presented in https://tc39.es/proposal-class-fields/#runtime-semantics-class-definition-evaluation.
|
@legendecas If you could make a PR to this branch (and the other branches) fixing the issue, then I can merge it in to fix this PR. |
The branch is on @Ms2ger's repo, the PR has to be updated in their repo. So maybe pushing the branch to tc39/ecma262 and till then we can target the branch and review PRs in tc39/ecma262. |
|
@legendecas you can make a PR directly to that repo (rather than opening up a fourth PR here) |
…, private methods & getters/setters This includes changes from https://tc39.es/proposal-class-fields/. This includes changes from https://tc39.es/proposal-private-methods/. This includes changes from https://tc39.es/proposal-static-class-features/. Co-authored-by: Ms2ger <Ms2ger@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Ujjwal Sharma <ryzokuken@igalia.com> Co-authored-by: Caio Lima <ticaiolima@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> Co-authored-by: Kevin Gibbons <bakkot@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Jordan Harband <ljharb@gmail.com>
ljharb
dismissed
their stale review
no longer an editor; everything addressed in #1668
4 participants
This includes changes from https://tc39.es/proposal-class-fields/.