On 2015/08/13 00:35:33, caitp wrote:
On 2015/08/13 00:29:51, adamk wrote:
> On 2015/08/12 23:58:04, adamk wrote:
> > On 2015/08/12 23:51:42, caitp wrote:
> > > On 2015/08/12 23:39:29, adamk wrote:
> > > > Note that the preparser already (accidentally) seems to throw an
error
> here,
> > > > because its implementation of IsValidReferenceExpression() is:
> > > >
> > > > bool IsValidReferenceExpression() const {
> > > > return IsIdentifier() || IsProperty();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > and NewTargetExpression is a PreParserExpression::Default().
> > >
> > > Just for the benefit of people touching the parser in the future, i
wonder
> if
> > it
> > > might be worth making that clearer. Or if not, maybe a comment
would be
good
> >
> > Yeah, agreed that this should be somewhere other than just this code
review.
> > I'll see about just adding it here. Would be great if the messages
tests
ran
> > with --min-preparse-length=0 to force the preparser.
>
> Not sure where this comment should go, actually. Any thoughts?
On phone atm, hard to see. But i had the point where the default
expression is
created.i think it would be nice to encode clearly that it's a special
thing
though, do a new enum value and factory. BUt yeah, wherever new.target is
preparsed/parsef, just leave a note there
My issue is that there are lots of PreParserExpressions for which
IsValidReferenceExpression() returns false, so it seems odd to put a comment
just for NewTarget. When you're at a computer let me know a particular
place you
think it'd make sense.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1290013002/
--
--
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.
