https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h
File src/contexts.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h#newcode594
src/contexts.h:594: : is_strict(language_mode) ||
!IsAccessorFunction(kind)
On 2015/04/07 17:00:11, arv wrote:
On 2015/04/07 16:29:57, caitp wrote:
> On 2015/04/07 16:18:39, arv wrote:
> > I don't understand why accessor functions are special cased here?
> >
> > Maybe restructure this code to make it clearer what is going on.
>
> It was to avoid breaking the old behaviour.
>
> But I'm not sure, it looks like lexically declared accessors are
always
> MethodDefinitions now, so maybe that's a break from ES5? I'm not
really sure
if
> they should be considered "new syntactic forms" or what
Accessors are considered Methods in ES6 so they have no prototype
property.
I just don't understand why we would use a sloppy map for a strict
mode accessor
function?
Oh I see what you're saying. So I guess I was trying to keep compat, and
wound up breaking it, my bad.
But my question is, should this be treated as a new syntactic form (like
other methods), or should the legacy behaviour be kept (where
caller/arguments are added in sloppy mode)
My suggestion was to rewrite this ternary into if statementest to make
the logic
easier to follow.
I try to follow the conventions used in the rest of the code, but I have
no problem with rewriting it as an if statement for clarity.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
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.
