Skip to content

Normative: Add class static initialization blocks - #2440

Merged
ljharb merged 1 commit into
tc39:masterfrom
rbuckton:class-static-block
Sep 8, 2021
Merged

ljharb merged 1 commit into
tc39:masterfrom
rbuckton:class-static-block

Conversation

@rbuckton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This adds the specification text from https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-static-block, currently at Stage 3.

@ljharb ljharb added needs test262 tests The proposal should specify how to test an implementation. Ideally via github.com/tc39/test262 normative change Affects behavior required to correctly evaluate some ECMAScript source text pending stage 4 This proposal has not yet achieved stage 4, but may otherwise be ready to merge. proposal This is related to a specific proposal, and will be closed/merged when the proposal reaches stage 4. labels Jun 23, 2021

@jmdyck jmdyck left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, I believe the following SDO definitions are needed:

  • EvaluateBody for ClassStaticBlockBody
  • PrivateBoundIdentifiers for ClassStaticBlock
  • ComputedPropertyContainsAwait for ClassStaticBlock

Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
@rbuckton
rbuckton force-pushed the class-static-block branch 2 times, most recently from 1875a2e to 5319cfe Compare June 24, 2021 20:19
@rbuckton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Thanks @jmdyck. I believe I've addressed your feedback, though I chose to use [[BodyFunction]] over [[Function]] and _bodyFunction_ over _func_ to further improve clarity.

jmdyck
jmdyck previously requested changes Jun 25, 2021
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
@rbuckton
rbuckton force-pushed the class-static-block branch from 5319cfe to 3c4fd9a Compare June 28, 2021 20:40
@ljharb
ljharb force-pushed the master branch 3 times, most recently from 3d0c24c to 7a79833 Compare June 29, 2021 02:21
@rbuckton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@tc39/ecma262-editors would you be able to review this?

@ljharb
ljharb requested review from a team, bakkot, michaelficarra and syg August 12, 2021 22:07
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
@rbuckton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

SpiderMonkey intends to ship this unflagged in 93, and it is already shipping in V8. I'd like to seek Stage 4 at the upcoming meeting, assuming an editor review is complete and approved prior to the agenda submission deadline at the end of the week.

@bakkot bakkot added editor call to be discussed in the next editor call has test262 tests and removed needs test262 tests The proposal should specify how to test an implementation. Ideally via github.com/tc39/test262 labels Aug 18, 2021
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
@rbuckton
rbuckton force-pushed the class-static-block branch from 7a6936c to 6194172 Compare August 18, 2021 19:54
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved
Comment thread spec.html Resolved

@bakkot bakkot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM apart from open comments.

@rbuckton
rbuckton force-pushed the class-static-block branch from 657f41e to 3a335f7 Compare August 25, 2021 01:10
@bakkot bakkot removed the editor call to be discussed in the next editor call label Aug 25, 2021
@ljharb ljharb added has stage 4 This PR represents a proposal that has achieved stage 4, and is ready to merge. and removed pending stage 4 This proposal has not yet achieved stage 4, but may otherwise be ready to merge. labels Aug 31, 2021
@bakkot bakkot added editor call to be discussed in the next editor call ready to merge Editors believe this PR needs no further reviews, and is ready to land. and removed editor call to be discussed in the next editor call labels Sep 8, 2021
@ljharb
ljharb dismissed jmdyck’s stale review September 8, 2021 22:07

changes addressed

ljharb pushed a commit to rbuckton/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2021
@ljharb
ljharb force-pushed the class-static-block branch from 3a335f7 to b51a822 Compare September 8, 2021 22:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

has stage 4 This PR represents a proposal that has achieved stage 4, and is ready to merge. has test262 tests normative change Affects behavior required to correctly evaluate some ECMAScript source text proposal This is related to a specific proposal, and will be closed/merged when the proposal reaches stage 4. ready to merge Editors believe this PR needs no further reviews, and is ready to land.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants