Before you can have a standard parser, you need a standard AST. There is no such thing as the moment, so the v8 parser, the SpiderMonkey parser and the JSCore parser, etc. all use distinct internal ASTs, each of which changes every so often, either because the language changes or because the VM needs to attach different information to help with compilation.
That's the main reason for which there hasn't been a standard user-accessible ECMAScript parser in ECMAScript. As Binary AST relies upon having a standard AST, standandardizing the AST is part of the Binary AST proposal. You may find the latest version of this AST online https://github.com/binast/binjs-ref/blob/master/spec/es6.webidl Cheers, David On 14/09/2019 10:10, Jack Works wrote: > This proposal is not a part of the binary AST proposal. Because that > proposal wants a binary representation and will not generate AST > directly from the ecmascript spec. > Because run those parsers in browser is pretty slow. Since the JS engine > can already parse the JavaScript code, just expose those interfaces will > make things easier. > > > Out of curiosity, what is the expected benefit wrt Esprima, Babel or > Shift? In particular since there is no standard AST for ECMAScript > yet [1]? > > Cheers, > David > > [1] Ok, that's a subset of https://github.com/tc39/proposal-binary-ast, > which is in the pipes. > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
