https://codereview.chromium.org/938443002/diff/40001/test/mjsunit/harmony/spread-call.js
File test/mjsunit/harmony/spread-call.js (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/938443002/diff/40001/test/mjsunit/harmony/spread-call.js#newcode3
test/mjsunit/harmony/spread-call.js:3: // found in the LICENSE file.
On 2015/02/23 14:46:49, caitp wrote:
On 2015/02/18 19:41:25, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> What is the expected evaluation order of the following snippet? Is
it "ABCXY"
or
> "ABXYC"? And can we have tests for it?
>
> function* gen() { print('X'); yield 0; print('Y'); }
>
> function a() { print('A'); }
> function b() { print('B'); return gen(); }
> function b() { print('C'); }
> foo(a(), ...(b()), c());
This is a good test. I think `foo()` would be called with `[undefined,
0,
undefined]`, and "ABXYC" should be printed. But interestingly, that's
not what
happens (we get the expected arguments, but "ABCXY" is logged)
That is the behaviour in FF nightly, based on
http://jsfiddle.net/beumfrrm/
foo() would be called with arguments `[undefined, 0, undefined]`, and
"ABXYC" is
printed. At least I think that's right :> adding test.
Adding the test and investigating that
The spec is clear on this (this one is easier than usual).
http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-argument-lists-runtime-semantics-argumentlistevaluation
The correct behavior is
ABXYC and [undefinded, 0, undefined]
https://codereview.chromium.org/938443002/
--
--
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.
