Conversation
|
@littledan: You requested that I investigate leveraging I have, however, leveraged FunctionCreate and MakeMethod, and removed the custom class static block environment record in an effort to simplify the specification text. |
Co-authored-by: Michael Ficarra <github@michael.ficarra.me>
syg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm, I think all my comments thus far are editorial.
Co-authored-by: Shu-yu Guo <shu@rfrn.org>
|
@syg: I've made updates based on your suggestions. Please let me know if there's anything else you see that I should address. @littledan: When you have some time, please provide your feedback. |
littledan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR is perfect--it encodes the semantics we agreed on, and removes the duplication that I was most concerned about. Thanks for the update, and apologies for my delay.
spec/biblio.json
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "https://tc39.es/ecma262/": [ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this should link to the diff for now, so it is not a dead link?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changing it to https://arai-a.github.io/ecma262-compare/?pr=1668 didn't fix the link. As soon as I open the diff it ignores the #sec-class-definitions-static-semantics-containsarguments added by ecmarkup.
Using https://arai-a.github.io/ecma262-compare/history/PR/1668/94b1af23d6ca075c6635bcd5b96c6450ec580f51 seems to work, though, but will get out of date if new commits are added.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can kind of hack around it by using this biblio entry:
{
"https://arai-a.github.io/ecma262-compare/?pr=1668&id=sec-class-definitions-static-semantics-containsarguments": [
{"type": "clause", "id": "sec-class-definitions-static-semantics-containsarguments", ... }
]
}
Since that diff tool uses id=.
|
I updated the biblio entry above, and also generated a fresh |
During the January TC39 meeting, the following changes are required to reach consensus for Stage 3:
new.targetshould follow the same behavior as methods and field initializers and returnundefined(Interaction withnew.target? #25).static {}blocks which are evaluated in document order interleaved with static field initializers (Why not allow multiple static blocks? #26).In addition, I've updated the specification text to be a delta from the Static Class Features proposal.
In addition the following are required: