Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Editorial: delete some SDO cases that are covered by the chain production rule #1933

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 23, 2020
Merged

Editorial: delete some SDO cases that are covered by the chain production rule #1933

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 23, 2020

Conversation

michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

@bakkot You may want to consider linting for these in tc39/ecmarkup#173.

@michaelficarra michaelficarra requested a review from a team April 2, 2020 16:36
@ljharb ljharb requested review from syg and bakkot April 2, 2020 16:47
@ljharb ljharb changed the title delete some SDO cases that are covered by the chain production rule Editorial: delete some SDO cases that are covered by the chain production rule Apr 2, 2020
@michaelficarra michaelficarra added the editor call to be discussed in the next editor call label Apr 3, 2020
@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member Author

At today's editor call, we decided that we will try to reduce unnecessary SDO definitions, as we do in this PR, relying on the chain rule wherever applicable.

@michaelficarra michaelficarra removed the editor call to be discussed in the next editor call label Apr 15, 2020
syg
syg approved these changes Apr 22, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@syg syg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm, yay deletions.

@ljharb ljharb self-assigned this Apr 23, 2020
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the chain-productions branch from d999d88 to 28c3b04 Compare April 23, 2020 00:12
@ljharb ljharb merged commit 28c3b04 into tc39:master Apr 23, 2020
@michaelficarra michaelficarra deleted the chain-productions branch April 23, 2020 00:19
jmdyck added a commit to jmdyck/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2020
@jmdyck
Editorial: Reinstate an SDO rule
d291d03 
PR tc39#1933 deleted SDO rules that are handled by the chain production rule,
but it also deleted this one which isn't.
(It has "TV" on the left and "TRV" on the right.)
jmdyck added a commit to jmdyck/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Apr 24, 2020
@jmdyck
Editorial: Reinstate an SDO rule
2ef21b6 
PR tc39#1933 deleted SDO rules that are handled by the chain production rule,
but it also deleted this one which isn't.
(It has "TV" on the left and "TRV" on the right.)
jmdyck added a commit to jmdyck/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2020
@jmdyck
Editorial: Reinstate an SDO rule
8e29adb 
PR tc39#1933 deleted SDO rules that are handled by the chain production rule,
but it also deleted this one which isn't.
(It has "TV" on the left and "TRV" on the right.)
ljharb pushed a commit to jmdyck/ecma262 that referenced this pull request May 6, 2020
@jmdyck @ljharb
Editorial: quick fixes (tc39#1965)
c112315 
Editorial: Reinstate an SDO rule

PR tc39#1933 deleted SDO rules that are handled by the chain production rule,
but it also deleted this one which isn't.
(It has "TV" on the left and "TRV" on the right.)

Editorial: Move an <emu-note> element

PR tc39#1490 (among other things) moved the evaluation semantics for ArrowFunction
from the Evaluation SDO to the NamedEvaluation SDO.
The accompanying <emu-note> should have moved at the same time
(in particular because of the reference to "step 3").

Editorial: Delete <emu-note> in TimeClip clause

PR tc39#1827 (among other things) removed step 4 from the algorithm for TimeClip,
obsoleting the accompanying emu-note that describes "the point of step 4".

Conceivably, the note could be reworded to describe the effect of
'ToInteger' on step 3, but I don't think it'd be worth the bother.

Editorial: Change "Step 2.a" to "Step 2.b" in RepeatMatcher note

PR tc39#1889 (among other things) inserted a step before the former 2.a,
but didn't update the note that referenced it.

Editorial: Change step 7 to step 6 in SortCompare note

Commit 9c1e076 (2015-10-26) introduced the '?' abbreviation for ReturnIfAbrupt.
This caused the ToString call on step 7 to move to step 6,
but the note that referred to it wasn't updated.

Editorial: Fix typo: "Descritor" -> "Descriptor"

Editorial: Fix typo: "GeneratorObject" -> "generator object"

(There's no such thing as a GeneratorObject.)

Editorial: Delete "as a parameter" after "is present"

(It's the only place in the spec where we use that phrasing.)

Editorial: Change "which" to "that"

... in "{String,Array,Map,Set} methods which return such iterators"

Editorial: Insert a comma in SetDefaultGlobalBindings()

Formerly, it read like "containing" modified "the property",
when it actually modified "the property descriptor".

Editorial: Change "lexical environment" to "Environment Record"

... in FunctionDeclarationInstantiation,
to balance the NOTE in the other arm of the if-else,
and also for consistency with the NOTE at 27.a.

(I should have done this in PR tc39#1697.)

Editorial: Change "step 3" to "step 4" in Note

... that accompanies the NamedEvaluation semantics for
    ArrowFunction : ArrowParameters `=&gt;` ConciseBody

PR tc39#1870 (among other things) inserted a step before the former step 3,
but didn't update the note that referenced it.
@michaelficarra michaelficarra mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2021
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@bakkot bakkot bakkot approved these changes

@syg syg syg approved these changes

Assignees

@ljharb ljharb

Labels
editorial change
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@michaelficarra @syg @bakkot @ljharb