https://codereview.chromium.org/939063002/diff/1/src/parser.cc
File src/parser.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/939063002/diff/1/src/parser.cc#newcode2884
src/parser.cc:2884: bool Parser::CheckInOrOf(bool accept_OF,
... could you move CheckInOrOf to ParserBase, seems pretty unnecessary
to have it twice.
https://codereview.chromium.org/939063002/diff/1/src/preparser.cc
File src/preparser.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/939063002/diff/1/src/preparser.cc#newcode752
src/preparser.cc:752: if (*ok) {
Nit: I'd write this the same style as Parser, so,
if (!*ok) early return_;
go_on();
... just to keep the logic as unified as possible. It's just a tiny
thing but Parser / PreParser are full of these unnecessary "let's
inverse the condition and write the blocks in a different order" things
which accumulate and make the eventual unification more tedious.
https://codereview.chromium.org/939063002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/strong/for-in.js
File test/mjsunit/strong/for-in.js (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/939063002/diff/1/test/mjsunit/strong/for-in.js#newcode12
test/mjsunit/strong/for-in.js:12: assertThrows("'use strong'; for (var x
= 0 in []);", SyntaxError);
Can we has tests that for of still works?
(In general, how are we going to test that the stuff we want to keep
working stays working? Should we have a list of tests which should also
work w/ strong mode and then run them w/ strong mode, so that we don't
need to duplicate them?)
https://codereview.chromium.org/939063002/
--
--
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.
