On 2015/01/09 15:31:54, marja wrote:
On 2015/01/09 15:18:48, marja wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't get a chance to have a look at this CL yet but I can do
that
> next week (the parsing part).
Actually, for that, or, before I do that, can you add some more tests in
test-parsing.cc, especially for error cases, afaic your test only tests
one
arrow func error case but I suppose there's more? (Makes the parsing part
easier
to review when I can see quickly which error cases we need to prepare
for.)
Also, what's up with the commented-out stuff in the test?
Yeah, I'll add some parsing tests
And don't we now need to check the ellipses-ness of expressions in many
more
places? So that we don't accidentally start allowing ...[someexpression]
in
places where we shouldn't? What's your plan for solving it?
(I'm okay with splitting this CL and landing the arrow function part
separately.)
The easiest thing is to just wait until the spread operator is supported,
before
supporting arrow functions, and land rest params for arrow functions as
part of
that CL (because, in that case, the parsing won't be too liberal anymore).
https://codereview.chromium.org/816913003/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
