thanks for review!
https://codereview.chromium.org/968263002/diff/240001/src/parser.cc
File src/parser.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/968263002/diff/240001/src/parser.cc#newcode4177
src/parser.cc:4177: DCHECK(block_scope->num_var_or_const() == 0);
On 2015/03/09 13:39:05, arv wrote:
Prefer DCHECK_EQ etc in general
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/968263002/diff/240001/src/scopes.cc
File src/scopes.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/968263002/diff/240001/src/scopes.cc#newcode1453
src/scopes.cc:1453: Variable* Scope::ClassVariableForMethod() const {
On 2015/03/09 10:41:46, rossberg wrote:
Nit: move this next to CheckStrongModeDeclaration
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/968263002/diff/240001/src/scopes.h
File src/scopes.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/968263002/diff/240001/src/scopes.h#newcode514
src/scopes.h:514: // Some block scopes are tagged as class scopes.
On 2015/03/09 10:41:46, rossberg wrote:
Yeah, I think this is fine for the time being, but it strikes me as
somewhat
hacky. Classes aren't blocks. Long term, we should probably rethink
the way we
distinguish various scope types. It might make sense to have subtypes
there, but
then the naming should be properly adjusted. I'm not yet convinced
it's worth
it, though.
It'll also depend on the object literal solution... at some point I
thought object literals would be another subtype of block scopes, but
meh, I don't think that's the right solution. I'm experimenting with
some alternative solutions...
https://codereview.chromium.org/968263002/
--
--
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.
