LGTM
https://codereview.chromium.org/948303004/diff/1/src/ast.h
File src/ast.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/948303004/diff/1/src/ast.h#newcode613
src/ast.h:613: const AstRawString* module_specifier() const { return
module_specifier_; }
On 2015/02/25 21:43:12, adamk wrote:
On 2015/02/25 16:07:25, arv wrote:
> On 2015/02/25 13:55:49, rossberg wrote:
> > Hm, is it necessary that the specifier is duplicated on every
importdecl
node?
> > That doesn't make sense from an AST perspective, and the fact that
you then
> need
> > a setter doesn't make it better.
>
> At the moment the actual import statement is not represented in the
AST so
then
> I see why this is needed. I think this approach is fine (at least
for now).
I'm open to other suggestions, but I don't think it will be clear
until I get
further along what the right organization for this data will be, which
is why I
went with this for now, basically a desugaring of
import {x, y} from "m.js"; -> import {x} from "m.js"; import {y} from
"m.js";
But is this an adequate desugaring? Wouldn't those two forms have
somewhat different interactions with the loader, which might be
observable if you customise it?
Maybe it's fine, if this program equivalence actually holds. But keep in
mind that the AST is a rather specific abstraction, not just organising
some data.
https://codereview.chromium.org/948303004/
--
--
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.
