Editorial: Expand the use of 'type' syntax #2691
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
spec.html
Outdated
| @@ -42881,7 +42896,7 @@ <h1>The <i>IteratorResult</i> Interface</h1> | |||
| *"done"* | |||
| </td> | |||
| <td> | |||
| Either *true* or *false*. | |||
| either *true* or *false* | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| either *true* or *false* | |
| a Boolean |
spec.html
Outdated
| @@ -44510,6 +44558,9 @@ <h1>Properties of Generator Instances</h1> | |||
| <td> | |||
| [[GeneratorBrand]] | |||
| </td> | |||
| <td> | |||
| a brand | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this actually restrict this field in any way? Is it more useful to say this than "anything"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Within the spec, it's a String or ~empty~, so I'd be inclined to put that in. (Or are we allowing for the possibility of spec-external uses that need a wider type?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
a String or ~empty~ works for me.
jmdyck
force-pushed
the
use_type_syntax_more
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4fc9df9
to
aaae37c
Compare
bakkot
approved these changes
Mar 17, 2022
michaelficarra
approved these changes
Mar 17, 2022
bakkot
added
the
ready to merge
In tables that 'declare' the required/optional properties of an interface, reword the 'types' (in the 'Value' column) to use the same (or similar) style as the parameters/return of abstract operations.
In tables that 'declare' the internal slots of an object, reword the 'types' (in the 'Type' column) to use the same (or similar) style as the parameters/return of abstract operations.
In tables that 'declare' the internal slots of an object,
where there are only 2 columns ("Internal Slot" and "Description"),
add a "Type" column.
... in the Iterator Record Fields table.
ljharb
force-pushed
the
use_type_syntax_more
branch
from
aaae37c
to
8d9522c
Compare
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.
Similar to PR #2602, which used 'type' syntax when declaring record fields, this PR uses it when declaring:
Also, there's a bonus commit that fixes up the field types of a recently added record.