On 2015/11/30 19:20:28, adamk wrote:
On 2015/11/30 15:47:37, caitp wrote:
> So, I'm still not really happy with this approach, but it is what it is.
>
> Maybe there's a better way to do this, like just introducing a new AST
node
like
> "RewritableExpression" or something, and wrapping the original
Assignment in
> that if it will be rewritten (and VisitRewritableExpression will always
just
> directly visit whatever the expression is).
>
> Doing it that way is still messy, but might avoid having to add weird
code
to
> VisitAssignment all over the place
That approach sounds good to me, and is even closer to what Dan did for
sloppy
block functions. It would allow you to get rid of the
RETURN_IF_VISIT_NODE()
stuff, as well.
I guess the only question is whether wrapping the original Assignment is
possible, structurally (the approaches used so far have been about mutating
the
Assignment or its children, but haven't had to deal with its parent in the
tree).
https://codereview.chromium.org/1309813007/
--
--
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.
