On 2014/12/10 12:16:43, mathias wrote:
On 2014/12/10 11:25:08, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/770333005/diff/20001/test/mjsunit/harmony/reg...
> > > test/mjsunit/harmony/regexp-flags.js:7: assertEquals('',
> > > RegExp.prototype.flags);
> > > On 2014/12/10 02:54:50, arv wrote:
> > > > Shouldn't this throw since the prototype object does not have
> > > [[OriginalFlags]]?
> > > >
> > > > I guess this is a really a bug in our implementation of
> > > RegExp.prototype.global.
> > > > But once/if we fix that then this test will start to fail.
> > >
> > > Ack. What do you want to do here – fix the separate bug later and
leave
the
> > test
> > > for now? Or just remove this test?
> >
> > Remove the test. It is incorrect per spec.
> > What you really want to test here is subclasses of RegExp but we do
not
> support
> > that currently.
>
> [Sorry that came out unclear:
> - the test asserts the behavior that is contrary to the spec, so should
be
> removed
> - subclassing comment is separate, not related to assertEquals('',
> RegExp.prototype.flags line]
I’m confused. The spec for `RegExp.prototype.global` says:
> 3. If R does not have an [[OriginalFlags]] internal slot throw a
TypeError
exception.
But `RegExp.prototype.flags` doesn’t seem to have such a restriction. What
makes
you say this should throw?
`flags` call `this.global` and that throws since `this` in this case is
RegExp.prototype.
https://codereview.chromium.org/770333005/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
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 v8-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
