https://codereview.chromium.org/15288011/diff/2001/test/mjsunit/harmony/iteration-semantics.js
File test/mjsunit/harmony/iteration-semantics.js (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/15288011/diff/2001/test/mjsunit/harmony/iteration-semantics.js#newcode33
test/mjsunit/harmony/iteration-semantics.js:33:
On 2013/06/06 11:09:09, Michael Starzinger wrote:
Can we increase the test coverage for iterations. I was thinking about
the
following cases which are not yet covered:
- Nested for-of statements, to verify that none of the internal
".result" and
".iterator" variables are destroyed.
- Using for-of on arbitrary iterator-like objects that have a next()
method as
opposed to just generators.
- Using for-of on iterators that return non-standard result objects
(e.g.
missing "done", missing "value", getters on these properties that
count number
of accesses)
- Corner-cases where the the next() method is missing or disappears
after a
certain number of iterations (to verify that the "iterator.next"
lookup is
performed on every iteration).
Also:
- interaction with exceptions
- ...and other non-local control flow (return, break/continue to outer
loops)
- return objects with getters that throw
- iterators and/or return objects that are proxies
https://codereview.chromium.org/15288011/diff/2001/test/mjsunit/harmony/iteration-semantics.js#newcode90
test/mjsunit/harmony/iteration-semantics.js:90: assertEquals(0,
fold(sum, 0, unreachable(null)));
Sigh...
https://codereview.chromium.org/15288011/
--
--
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/groups/opt_out.
