Editorial: Stylize strings as values. #1733

rkirsling · 2019-10-11T04:31:35Z

#1725 included a new section on Value Notation; this PR enacts it by updating `"foo"` → *"foo"* throughout the spec. This means that all ECMAScript language values shall now be stylized as such.

rkirsling · 2019-10-11T04:33:18Z

spec.html

  <p><emu-xref href="#sec-date.prototype.toisostring"></emu-xref>: If the year cannot be represented using the Date Time String Format specified in <emu-xref href="#sec-date-time-string-format"></emu-xref> a RangeError exception is thrown. Previous editions did not specify the behaviour for that case.</p>
  <p><emu-xref href="#sec-date.prototype.tostring"></emu-xref>: Previous editions did not specify the value returned by `Date.prototype.toString` when this time value is *NaN*. ECMAScript 2015 specifies the result to be the String value *"Invalid Date"*.</p>
-  <p><emu-xref href="#sec-regexp-pattern-flags"></emu-xref>, <emu-xref href="#sec-escaperegexppattern"></emu-xref>: Any LineTerminator code points in the value of the `"source"` property of a RegExp instance must be expressed using an escape sequence. Edition 5.1 only required the escaping of `"/"`.</p>
+  <p><emu-xref href="#sec-regexp-pattern-flags"></emu-xref>, <emu-xref href="#sec-escaperegexppattern"></emu-xref>: Any LineTerminator code points in the value of the *"source"* property of a RegExp instance must be expressed using an escape sequence. Edition 5.1 only required the escaping of `/`.</p>


Note: The removal of quotes around the / here is just to (hopefully?) simplify conflict resolution with #1724.

I'd say you should prefer a coherent commit over avoiding merge conflicts.

jmdyck

Apart from the three spots noted, this looks good to me.

jmdyck · 2019-10-13T00:34:00Z

spec.html

@@ -4758,7 +4758,7 @@ <h1>Runtime Semantics: MV</h1>
              The MV of <emu-grammar>StrUnsignedDecimalLiteral ::: DecimalDigits ExponentPart</emu-grammar> is the MV of |DecimalDigits| times 10<sub>ℝ</sub><sup>_e_</sup>, where _e_ is the MV of |ExponentPart|.
            </li>
          </ul>
-          <p>Once the exact MV for a String numeric literal has been determined, it is then rounded to a value of the Number type. If the MV is 0, then the rounded value is *+0* unless the first non white space code point in the String numeric literal is `"-"`, in which case the rounded value is *-0*. Otherwise, the rounded value must be the Number value for the MV (in the sense defined in <emu-xref href="#sec-ecmascript-language-types-number-type"></emu-xref>), unless the literal includes a |StrUnsignedDecimalLiteral| and the literal has more than 20 significant digits, in which case the Number value may be either the Number value for the MV of a literal produced by replacing each significant digit after the 20th with a 0 digit or the Number value for the MV of a literal produced by replacing each significant digit after the 20th with a 0 digit and then incrementing the literal at the 20th digit position. A digit is significant if it is not part of an |ExponentPart| and</p>
+          <p>Once the exact MV for a String numeric literal has been determined, it is then rounded to a value of the Number type. If the MV is 0, then the rounded value is *+0* unless the first non white space code point in the String numeric literal is *"-"*, in which case the rounded value is *-0*. Otherwise, the rounded value must be the Number value for the MV (in the sense defined in <emu-xref href="#sec-ecmascript-language-types-number-type"></emu-xref>), unless the literal includes a |StrUnsignedDecimalLiteral| and the literal has more than 20 significant digits, in which case the Number value may be either the Number value for the MV of a literal produced by replacing each significant digit after the 20th with a 0 digit or the Number value for the MV of a literal produced by replacing each significant digit after the 20th with a 0 digit and then incrementing the literal at the 20th digit position. A digit is significant if it is not part of an |ExponentPart| and</p>


This is a code point, not a String value, so should be changed to one of:

`-`

U+002D (HYPHEN-MINUS)

`-` U+002D (HYPHEN-MINUS)

(There's precedent for each.)

jmdyck · 2019-10-13T00:46:06Z

spec.html

@@ -19025,7 +19025,7 @@ <h2>Syntax</h2>
    <emu-clause id="sec-directive-prologues-and-the-use-strict-directive">
      <h1>Directive Prologues and the Use Strict Directive</h1>
      <p>A <dfn id="directive-prologue">Directive Prologue</dfn> is the longest sequence of |ExpressionStatement|s occurring as the initial |StatementListItem|s or |ModuleItem|s of a |FunctionBody|, a |ScriptBody|, or a |ModuleBody| and where each |ExpressionStatement| in the sequence consists entirely of a |StringLiteral| token followed by a semicolon. The semicolon may appear explicitly or may be inserted by automatic semicolon insertion. A Directive Prologue may be an empty sequence.</p>
-      <p>A <dfn id="use-strict-directive">Use Strict Directive</dfn> is an |ExpressionStatement| in a Directive Prologue whose |StringLiteral| is either the exact code unit sequences `"use strict"` or `'use strict'`. A Use Strict Directive may not contain an |EscapeSequence| or |LineContinuation|.</p>
+      <p>A <dfn id="use-strict-directive">Use Strict Directive</dfn> is an |ExpressionStatement| in a Directive Prologue whose |StringLiteral| is either the exact code unit sequences *"use strict"* or *'use strict'*. A Use Strict Directive may not contain an |EscapeSequence| or |LineContinuation|.</p>


This sentence is odd, in particular the phrase:
whose |StringLiteral| is either the exact code unit sequences ...
A |StringLiteral| is a Parse Node, or (by extension) the source text that it matches, but it's not a code unit sequence. So I recommend:

change code unit to code point (or code unit sequence to source text),

revert the backtick-to-asterisk change, and

maybe insert of after either.

Sounds good; this is the line I was most conflicted over myself.

jmdyck · 2019-10-13T00:57:47Z

spec.html

@@ -31624,7 +31624,7 @@ <h1>Runtime Semantics: Canonicalize ( _ch_ )</h1>
            <pre><code class="javascript">["baaabaac", "ba", undefined, "abaac"]</code></pre>
          </emu-note>
          <emu-note>
-            <p>In case-insignificant matches when _Unicode_ is *true*, all characters are implicitly case-folded using the simple mapping provided by the Unicode standard immediately before they are compared. The simple mapping always maps to a single code point, so it does not map, for example, `"&szlig;"` (U+00DF) to `"SS"`. It may however map a code point outside the Basic Latin range to a character within, for example, `"&#x17f;"` (U+017F) to `"s"`. Such characters are not mapped if _Unicode_ is *false*. This prevents Unicode code points such as U+017F and U+212A from matching regular expressions such as `/[a-z]/i`, but they will match `/[a-z]/ui`.</p>
+            <p>In case-insignificant matches when _Unicode_ is *true*, all characters are implicitly case-folded using the simple mapping provided by the Unicode standard immediately before they are compared. The simple mapping always maps to a single code point, so it does not map, for example, *"&szlig;"* (U+00DF) to *"SS"*. It may however map a code point outside the Basic Latin range to a character within, for example, *"&#x17f;"* (U+017F) to *"s"*. Such characters are not mapped if _Unicode_ is *false*. This prevents Unicode code points such as U+017F and U+212A from matching regular expressions such as `/[a-z]/i`, but they will match `/[a-z]/ui`.</p>


These are code points, not string values.

This particular line is some remaining confusion from #1724, as I thought we decided not to remove the quotes, but I ought to have asked that more explicitly over there.

I don't think we made an explicit decision on this case in #1724, I just failed to flag it as code points there.

jmdyck · 2019-10-13T14:01:44Z

The net effect is good now, but I think, for clarity, it would be better to restructure the PR as two commits:

Handling the 3 code point exceptions. (The commit message could describe it as a belated addition to Editorial: Use consistent notation for code points. #1724.)
All the backtick-to-asterisk cases.

@ljharb, what do you think?

rkirsling · 2019-10-13T14:21:25Z

PRs are generally squash-merged though, right? So in that sense, it might be better to move the third commit here over to #1724 (since the merge button hasn't been hit on it yet) and ensure that those lines aren't touched in this PR.

Edit: I now see that #1734 is an example of a PR where we didn't squash, so I suppose either way should work.

jmdyck · 2019-10-13T15:04:02Z

Ah! I totally forgot that #1724 was still open. Moving those cases there makes sense.

rkirsling · 2019-10-13T15:32:16Z

Moved third commit to #1724 (and dropped the problematic lines from the first commit here).

jmdyck

Almost there!

jmdyck · 2019-10-14T18:48:50Z

spec.html

  <p><emu-xref href="#sec-date.prototype.toisostring"></emu-xref>: If the year cannot be represented using the Date Time String Format specified in <emu-xref href="#sec-date-time-string-format"></emu-xref> a RangeError exception is thrown. Previous editions did not specify the behaviour for that case.</p>
  <p><emu-xref href="#sec-date.prototype.tostring"></emu-xref>: Previous editions did not specify the value returned by `Date.prototype.toString` when this time value is *NaN*. ECMAScript 2015 specifies the result to be the String value *"Invalid Date"*.</p>
-  <p><emu-xref href="#sec-regexp-pattern-flags"></emu-xref>, <emu-xref href="#sec-escaperegexppattern"></emu-xref>: Any LineTerminator code points in the value of the `"source"` property of a RegExp instance must be expressed using an escape sequence. Edition 5.1 only required the escaping of `"/"`.</p>
+  <p><emu-xref href="#sec-regexp-pattern-flags"></emu-xref>, <emu-xref href="#sec-escaperegexppattern"></emu-xref>: Any LineTerminator code points in the value of the *"source"* property of a RegExp instance must be expressed using an escape sequence. Edition 5.1 only required the escaping of `/`.</p>


I'd say you should prefer a coherent commit over avoiding merge conflicts.

jmdyck · 2019-10-14T19:09:36Z

spec.html

@@ -31793,7 +31793,7 @@ <h1>CharacterClassEscape</h1>
        <p>The production <emu-grammar>UnicodePropertyValueExpression :: LoneUnicodePropertyNameOrValue</emu-grammar> evaluates as follows:</p>
        <emu-alg>
          1. Let _s_ be SourceText of |LoneUnicodePropertyNameOrValue|.
-          1. If ! UnicodeMatchPropertyValue(`"General_Category"`, _s_) is identical to a List of Unicode code points that is the name of a Unicode general category or general category alias listed in the &ldquo;Property value and aliases&rdquo; column of <emu-xref href="#table-unicode-general-category-values"></emu-xref>, then
+          1. If ! UnicodeMatchPropertyValue(*"General_Category"*, _s_) is identical to a List of Unicode code points that is the name of a Unicode general category or general category alias listed in the &ldquo;Property value and aliases&rdquo; column of <emu-xref href="#table-unicode-general-category-values"></emu-xref>, then


Found another! UnicodeMatchPropertyValue "takes two parameters ..., each of which is a List of Unicode code points". So here, "General_Category" represents a List of code points, not a String value. (Ditto the occurrence on the next line.) This case should probably be handled in #1724.

Good catch! I don't think the next line applies though, as it's referring to this (that's also the reason for “True” three lines after that).

I don't think the next line applies though

Okay, I can go along with that.

rkirsling · 2019-10-14T20:54:32Z

Removed those two changes from this PR.

Ms2ger · 2019-10-15T08:37:13Z

Are there plans to fix up all the active proposals?

rkirsling · 2019-10-15T08:51:27Z

@Ms2ger That is a very good question. It seems quite a hurdle to address all proposal repos at all stages at once. Perhaps we should enforce this just at the point of the actual 262 PR?

In particular, if you'd like me to help with updating #1668, I could do that.

syg · 2019-10-17T00:16:51Z

Are there plans to fix up all the active proposals?

Surely not for proposal spec text. The old convention doesn't impede readability and understanding. But of course we should take care to apply the new convention when merging proposals into master.

syg

More a rubberstamp than review.

The change from backticks to asterisks occurred a few weeks ago via PR tc39#1733. Looks like the merge of PR tc39#1479 accidentally reverted it for this one line.

…als" (tc39#1778) - "Set X to be Y" -> "Set X to Y" - The change from backticks to asterisks occurred a few weeks ago via PR tc39#1733. Looks like the merge of PR tc39#1479 accidentally reverted it for this one line.

rkirsling commented Oct 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

rkirsling changed the title ~~Editorial: Represent strings as values.~~ Editorial: Stylize strings as values. Oct 11, 2019

ljharb added the editorial change label Oct 11, 2019

ljharb requested a review from a team October 11, 2019 04:46

ljharb approved these changes Oct 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

ljharb requested review from syg and jmdyck October 11, 2019 05:05

jmdyck requested changes Oct 13, 2019

View reviewed changes

rkirsling force-pushed the use-asterisks-for-strings branch from 0b43d49 to ca7f823 Compare October 13, 2019 11:45

rkirsling mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2019

Editorial: Use consistent notation for code points. #1724

Merged

rkirsling force-pushed the use-asterisks-for-strings branch from ca7f823 to 242d2cf Compare October 13, 2019 15:30

rkirsling requested a review from jmdyck October 14, 2019 08:13

jmdyck requested changes Oct 14, 2019

View reviewed changes

rkirsling force-pushed the use-asterisks-for-strings branch from 242d2cf to a0bcce7 Compare October 14, 2019 20:54

ljharb pushed a commit to rkirsling/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2019

Editorial: Represent strings as values (tc39#1733)

75f27e8

ljharb self-assigned this Oct 16, 2019

ljharb force-pushed the use-asterisks-for-strings branch from a0bcce7 to 75f27e8 Compare October 16, 2019 06:25

syg approved these changes Oct 17, 2019

View reviewed changes

ljharb requested a review from jmdyck October 17, 2019 18:16

jmdyck approved these changes Oct 18, 2019

View reviewed changes

Editorial: Represent strings as values (tc39#1733)

55707d0

ljharb force-pushed the use-asterisks-for-strings branch from 75f27e8 to 55707d0 Compare October 19, 2019 05:52

ljharb merged commit 55707d0 into tc39:master Oct 19, 2019

rkirsling mentioned this pull request Oct 19, 2019

All string literals must be code formatted tc39/ecma402#54

Closed

rkirsling deleted the use-asterisks-for-strings branch October 19, 2019 12:56

jmdyck mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2019

Editorial: Eliminate Lexical Environment #1697

Merged

spectranaut mentioned this pull request Dec 19, 2019

Editorial: Stylize strings as values. tc39/ecma402#396

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Editorial: Stylize strings as values. #1733

Editorial: Stylize strings as values. #1733

rkirsling commented Oct 11, 2019

rkirsling Oct 11, 2019

jmdyck Oct 14, 2019

jmdyck left a comment

jmdyck Oct 13, 2019

jmdyck Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

rkirsling Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

jmdyck Oct 13, 2019

rkirsling Oct 13, 2019

jmdyck Oct 13, 2019

jmdyck commented Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

rkirsling commented Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

jmdyck commented Oct 13, 2019

rkirsling commented Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

jmdyck left a comment

jmdyck Oct 14, 2019

jmdyck Oct 14, 2019

rkirsling Oct 14, 2019 •

edited

jmdyck Oct 15, 2019

rkirsling commented Oct 14, 2019

Ms2ger commented Oct 15, 2019

rkirsling commented Oct 15, 2019 •

edited

syg commented Oct 17, 2019

syg left a comment

Editorial: Stylize strings as values. #1733

Editorial: Stylize strings as values. #1733

Conversation

rkirsling commented Oct 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jmdyck left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jmdyck Oct 13, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rkirsling Oct 13, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jmdyck commented Oct 13, 2019 • edited

rkirsling commented Oct 13, 2019 • edited

jmdyck commented Oct 13, 2019

rkirsling commented Oct 13, 2019 • edited

jmdyck left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rkirsling Oct 14, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rkirsling commented Oct 14, 2019

Ms2ger commented Oct 15, 2019

rkirsling commented Oct 15, 2019 • edited

syg commented Oct 17, 2019

syg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jmdyck Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

rkirsling Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

jmdyck commented Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

rkirsling commented Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

rkirsling commented Oct 13, 2019 •

edited

rkirsling Oct 14, 2019 •

edited

rkirsling commented Oct 15, 2019 •

edited