On 2015/03/25 14:14:36, arv wrote:
On 2015/03/25 13:58:09, caitp wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js
> File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js#newcode50
> test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js:50: var f_own_property_names =
> removePoisoned(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(f));
> On 2015/03/25 13:36:47, arv wrote:
> > Would this test be cleaner if f was strict?
>
> a strict ordinary function still has the properties, they just throw ---
unless
> you mean the name "removePoisoned" is confusing, since they aren't
poisoned
in
> sloppy fns
You are right... I was not thinking through the cases correctly.
The functions we have are:
Strict with restricted properties
Strict without restricted properties
Sloppy with those stupid properties
Maybe the Maps should be name strict_restricted, strict_plain and sloppy?
New syntactic forms do not have the properties, regardless of the language
mode
(paraphrasing 16.1) --- so strict_plain and sloppy_plain both exist, but
they're
essentially the same thing. Maybe "strict_restricted"
and "sloppy_restricted"
and "unrestricted" are good name variations?
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
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.
