-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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.
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
Editorial: Don't read the [[Status]] of non-cyclic modules #1486
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
zenparsing
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2019
Merged
GeorgNeis
reviewed
Apr 2, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for taking care of this!
I think a similar change to GetModuleNamespace is still missing.
@GeorgNeis Thanks for the review; fixed. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
ljharb
force-pushed
the
fix-module-status-check
branch
from
April 10, 2019 23:12
557966e
to
ae81555
Compare
ljharb
pushed a commit
to littledan/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 10, 2019
[[Status]] is a field of Cyclic Module Records; Abstract Module Records don't keep track of it. This patch avoids checking the [[Status]] of modules that don't have one, instead first checking whether the module is cyclic. All of the use cases seemed to be when modules were in dependency chains and not leaves. Given the proposed Synthetic Module Records tc39/proposal-built-in-modules#44 and their possible usage in JSON modules, CSS modules, and WebIDL modules, it makes sense to avoid these code paths for those cases.
ljharb
force-pushed
the
fix-module-status-check
branch
from
April 10, 2019 23:14
ae81555
to
6b9c201
Compare
ljharb
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
[[Status]] is a field of Cyclic Module Records; Abstract Module Records
don't keep track of it.
This patch avoids checking the [[Status]] of modules that don't have one,
instead first checking whether the module is cyclic. All of the use
cases seemed to be when modules were in dependency chains and not leaves.
Given the proposed Synthetic Module Records
tc39/proposal-built-in-modules#44
and their possible usage in JSON modules, CSS modules, and WebIDL
modules, it makes sense to avoid these code paths for those cases.
Fixes #1455