On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <a...@rauschma.de> wrote:
> I find the specification of template strings still a bit difficult to
> understand:
>
> β The abbreviations TV and CV are used 12.2.9, but defined in 11.8.6.1.
>
> Did you mean TV and TRV?
>
> This is no different than:
> - String SV and CV
> - Number MV
>
> Which are all defined in Chapter 11
>
> β Tagged templates are explained via EvaluateCall(tagRef, TemplateLiteral,
> tailCall). I think it would be easier to understand if it used
> GetTemplateCallSite.
Because a Tagged Template is a call. Would it be clearer if there was a note
that highlighted the fact that the actual TemplateLiteral provides the argument
list for the call?
>
> β Itβd be nice if untagged template strings and tagged templates could be
> mentioned closer together. They are basically the same thing and this
> structure seems to be dictated by grammar. To me, template strings are more
> like tagged templates without a tag. Would it make sense to specify them that
> way?
They actually aren't the same thing at all. A tagged template literal is a kind
of call. A untagged template literal is essentially a string interpolation
operation. Different precedence, different semantics.
>
> (no response, I'll let Allen address these)
The spec. isn't a feature level tutorial. Instead, it is organized around the
syntactic and semantic layers of the language and each major feature typically
impacts various different parts of the spec.
New lexical (token) level syntax and related semantics go into clause 11.
Template Literals (without the tag) are a kind of PrimaryExpression so they
belong in 12.2. A tagged template is a kind of MemberExpression so it belongs
in 12.3.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
