Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Editorial: Spec is inconsistent in checking the result of OrdinaryObjectCreate #2097

Closed
Ms2ger opened this issue Jul 15, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #2098
Closed

Editorial: Spec is inconsistent in checking the result of OrdinaryObjectCreate #2097

Ms2ger opened this issue Jul 15, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #2098
Labels
completion records Relates to completion records, and ? / ! notation.

Comments

@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor

Ms2ger commented Jul 15, 2020

The spec uses both "OrdinaryObjectCreate(..)" and "! OrdinaryObjectCreate(..)" (sometimes in the same section); #2045 also adds "? OrdinaryObjectCreate(..)".

They should probably be consistent.
@bakkot bakkot added the completion records Relates to completion records, and ? / ! notation. label Jul 15, 2020
@bakkot
Copy link
Contributor

bakkot commented Jul 15, 2020

This is an instance of a fairly prevalent problem, tracked in #1796. I am still intending to address this as soon as I can, though it is going to have to wait on the stage-4 proposal PRs, fixing the spec's use of arithmetic (#1964 / #2007), and probably #1950.

@bakkot bakkot mentioned this issue Jul 15, 2020
Closed
@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Jul 15, 2020

The ones missing a ! are an oversight. Pending #1796, they should all be added.

@bakkot
Copy link
Contributor

bakkot commented Jul 15, 2020

The spec currently allows omitting !. They are not incorrect as written, merely inconsistent.

@ljharb ljharb mentioned this issue Jul 15, 2020
Merged
@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Jul 15, 2020

Filed #2098 to make them consistent in the meantime.

ljharb added a commit to ljharb/ecma262 that referenced this issue Jul 15, 2020
@ljharb
Editorial: add missing ! on calls to OrdinaryObjectCreate
553cbfb 
Fixes tc39#2097.
@ljharb ljharb closed this as completed in 8e0e7d1 Sep 2, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
completion records Relates to completion records, and ? / ! notation.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Editorial: add missing ! on calls to OrdinaryObjectCreate ljharb/ecma262
3 participants
@ljharb @Ms2ger @bakkot