Missing semi-colon in for grammar

[pvdz]

The IterationStatement (link) has this rule:

for(Lexical Declaration[~In, ?Yield, ?Await] Expression[+In, ?Yield, ?Await]opt; Expression[+In, ?Yield, ?Await]opt) Statement[?Yield, ?Await, ?Return]

While that initially got me excited I've since then recovered and am fairly certain it's just missing the first semi-colon in the grammar.

This bug is present in every appearance of this rule (about 13x, search for LexicalDeclaration Expression) and was at least present since ES6.

Trivial fix.

[pvdz]

I would like to point out that there's a unique opportunity here to define a "simple" loop where you define the start and finish of a var without, technically, introducing new syntax. for (let i 80; 100) log(i)

[pvdz]

I would like to point out that there's a unique opportunity here to define a "simple" loop where you define the start and finish of a var without, technically, introducing new syntax. for (let i 80; 100) log(i)

[littledan]

@qfox Where do you think the missing semicolon is? LexicalDeclaration's grammar has a semicolon in it.

It's true that this is a possibility for a new language feature, but such a new feature will have to be proposed separately.

[littledan]

@qfox Where do you think the missing semicolon is? LexicalDeclaration's grammar has a semicolon in it.

It's true that this is a possibility for a new language feature, but such a new feature will have to be proposed separately.

[pvdz]

(That last bit was a joke)

The grammar is

for(LexicalDeclaration Expression; Expression) Statement

I'm pretty sure that should be

for(LexicalDeclaration; Expression; Expression) Statement

[pvdz]

(That last bit was a joke)

The grammar is

for(LexicalDeclaration Expression; Expression) Statement

I'm pretty sure that should be

for(LexicalDeclaration; Expression; Expression) Statement

[pvdz]

Oh, I see now. Okay.

[pvdz]

Oh, I see now. Okay.

[littledan]

@qfox I'm glad to have you carefully reviewing the ECMAScript spec, even if this ended up being OK already. I hope you keep on the lookout for anything that we could fix or make more clear!

[littledan]

@qfox I'm glad to have you carefully reviewing the ECMAScript spec, even if this ended up being OK already. I hope you keep on the lookout for anything that we could fix or make more clear!