[4th Edition] DateTimeFormat.formatToParts() #64

zbraniecki · 2016-01-14T17:24:07Z

Issue: #30

Features

CreateDateTimeParts is a new abstract that powers format() and formatToParts() for dataTimeFormat instances.
Moving all abstracts to the new Abstract section.

caridy · 2016-02-11T15:29:15Z

spec/datetimeformat.html


      <p>
-        When the FormatDateTime abstract operation is called with arguments _dateTimeFormat_ (which must be an object initialized as a DateTimeFormat) and _x_ (which must be a Number value), it returns a String value representing _x_ (interpreted as a time value as specified in ES2015, 20.3.1.1) according to the effective locale and the formatting options of _dateTimeFormat_. This abstract operation functions as follows:
+        A DateTime formatToParts function is an anonymous function that optionally takes an argument _date_. It performs the following steps:


When a DateTime formatToParts function is called with optional argument date, the following steps are taken:

caridy · 2016-02-11T16:01:12Z

Also, we should resolve the conflicts with master before producing a new HTML for the formal review from @littledan

anba · 2016-02-11T17:36:24Z

spec/datetimeformat.html

+              1. Let _fv_ be an implementation and locale dependent String value representing "post meridiem";
+            1. Else,
+              1. Let _fv_ be an implementation and locale dependent String value representing "ante meridiem".
+            1. Add new part record { [[type]]: "dayperiod", [[value]]: _fv_ } as a new element of the list _result_.


Shouldn't this part be named to "dayPeriod" for consistency with other compound names (e.g. "timeZoneName")?

caridy · 2016-02-18T20:30:32Z

Plus, _dateTimneFormat_ has a typo, in two places.

stasm · 2016-02-19T10:36:26Z

spec/datetimeformat.html

+
+    <emu-clause id="alg-CreateDateTimeParts">
+
+      <h1>CreateDateTimeParts(dateTimeFormat, x)</h1>


In #79 @caridy wanted to use the verb format for a similar abstract operation: FormatNumberToParts. Perhaps we could rename this here as well for consistency to FormatDateTimeToParts? This will also be more inline with the name of the existing abstract operation: FormatDateTime.

zbraniecki · 2016-03-04T22:51:04Z

@caridy - rebased on top of master and applied stas's feedback

stasm · 2016-03-23T19:07:01Z

spec/datetimeformat.html

      <p>
        The *length* property of a DateTime format function is 1.
      </p>
    </emu-clause>

-    <emu-clause id="sec-formatdatetime" aoid="FormatDateTime">
-      <h1>FormatDateTime (dateTimeFormat, x)</h1>
+    <emu-clause id="sec-formatdatetimetoparts" aoid="PartitionDateTimePattern">


Update the id here?

thnx! fixed

littledan · 2016-03-25T21:26:40Z

spec/datetimeformat.html

+          1. Let _O_ be ObjectCreate(%ObjectPrototype%).
+          1. CreateDataPropertyOrThrow(_O_, "type", _part_.[[type]]).
+          1. CreateDataPropertyOrThrow(_O_, "value", _part_.[[value]]).
+          1. Perform ? DefinePropertyOrThrow(_O_, "value", _valueDesc_).


The preceding three lines look funny in an identical way to NumberFormat.formatToParts. Do you think you could put the two bodies in a single abstract algorithm (leaving out the first step) to reduce duplication?

that will be true for all .formatToParts() in the future, including relative time, etc.

littledan · 2016-03-30T20:05:15Z

LGTM on the new version

caridy · 2016-04-26T23:00:10Z

spec/datetimeformat.html

+              1. Let _fv_ be an implementation and locale dependent String value representing "post meridiem";
+            1. Else,
+              1. Let _fv_ be an implementation and locale dependent String value representing "ante meridiem".
+            1. Add new part record { [[type]]: *"dayPeriod"*, [[value]]: _fv_ } as a new element of the list _result_.


dayPeriods?

Why dayPeriods? We call the token dayPeriod - https://github.com/andyearnshaw/Intl.js/blob/master/src/12.datetimeformat.js#L1011

hmm, I got confused, look two lines above the link you provided, it is using dayPeriods, so I was confused here. we need to update the polyfill then :)

Why?

The internal resolveDateString call uses dayPeriods, both before formatToParts landed [0] and after.
The public token name is dayPeriod.

What do you need me to update in the polyfill?

[0] andyearnshaw/Intl.js@a9743c3#diff-7eb52b366866677666470e019283c8eaL2489

It is confusing to have two things that are so similar, dayPeriod and dayPeriods. But I will review it myself, see if that makes sense or not.

so, in CLDR we have a list dayPeriods - https://github.com/andyearnshaw/Intl.js/blob/2fd2654d2adc8f870fa3f0616707d333135cc9f1/locale-data/json/en-US.json#L168

And then in formatToParts we create a token with a single dayPeriod.

zbraniecki · 2016-05-06T01:57:03Z

Heads up, I rebased on top of master and moved prototype.format* functions to throw if the params are wrong instead of asserting.

caridy · 2016-06-09T22:40:54Z

LGTM @zbraniecki, now we should wait for consensus at TC39 before merging this.

littledan · 2016-06-10T12:54:11Z

Not just consensus at TC39 but Stage 4, with two implementations (I'd prefer two browser implementations, personally).

zbraniecki · 2016-06-29T19:39:14Z

@littledan - we now have two implementations - one in SpiderMonkey and one in Intl.js. I'd love to see two browser implementations but that depends on the implementers. Do you know when we can see the feature in V8?

zbraniecki · 2016-07-27T18:05:19Z

With test262 in pipeline, I'm planning to ask for the second implementer to step up at the current TC39 meeting. I'd like to break the chicken-egg problem between 2 impl. and stage 4.

leobalter · 2016-07-27T23:52:18Z

spec/datetimeformat.html

+          1. Let _O_ be ObjectCreate(%ObjectPrototype%).
+          1. Perform ? CreateDataPropertyOrThrow(_O_, "type", _part_.[[type]]).
+          1. Perform ? CreateDataPropertyOrThrow(_O_, "value", _part_.[[value]]).
+          1. Perform ? CreateDataProperty(_result_, ? ToString(_n_), _O_).


ToString(_n_) will not throw. ? can be replaced by !.

Actually I believe none of these last 3 lines will throw anything. All of the ? can be replaced by ! on them.

* NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts() * DateTimeFormat.prototype.formatToParts()

caridy · 2016-08-14T19:07:51Z

merged as 4a711f0

zbraniecki mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2016

Extend Formatters to allow for token formatting #30

Closed

zbraniecki force-pushed the format-to-parts branch 2 times, most recently from 77d7832 to 36ea4a4 Compare January 28, 2016 22:04

caridy reviewed Feb 11, 2016
View reviewed changes

anba reviewed Feb 11, 2016
View reviewed changes

stasm reviewed Feb 19, 2016
View reviewed changes

stasm mentioned this pull request Feb 29, 2016

DateTimeFormat.formatToParts fixes zbraniecki/ecma402#1

Merged

caridy changed the title ~~DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()~~ [4rd Edition] DateTimeFormat.formatToParts() Feb 29, 2016

zbraniecki force-pushed the format-to-parts branch from 5b3c21a to 593b9a4 Compare March 4, 2016 22:49

stasm reviewed Mar 23, 2016
View reviewed changes

zbraniecki force-pushed the format-to-parts branch 2 times, most recently from 68fa6ae to ca27e01 Compare March 23, 2016 22:15

littledan reviewed Mar 25, 2016
View reviewed changes

zbraniecki force-pushed the format-to-parts branch 2 times, most recently from 77cdef1 to 3c253c1 Compare March 29, 2016 22:37

caridy reviewed Apr 26, 2016
View reviewed changes

zbraniecki force-pushed the format-to-parts branch 2 times, most recently from 76adfa8 to 09c03c2 Compare May 6, 2016 01:53

zbraniecki force-pushed the format-to-parts branch from 09c03c2 to bcf6ca0 Compare May 6, 2016 03:58

zbraniecki force-pushed the format-to-parts branch from bcf6ca0 to 9a0e35b Compare June 29, 2016 19:36

zbraniecki mentioned this pull request Jul 27, 2016

Add DateTimeFormat.prototype.formatToParts tests tc39/test262#734

Merged

Add DateTimeFormat.prototype.formatToParts

934677d

zbraniecki force-pushed the format-to-parts branch from 9a0e35b to 934677d Compare July 27, 2016 16:19

leobalter reviewed Jul 27, 2016
View reviewed changes

caridy added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2016

clean up after merging PR #64

b03aab8

caridy mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2016

FormatToParts: aggregation of PR #64 and PR #79 #100

Merged

caridy added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2016

FormatToParts: aggregation of PR #64 and PR #79 (#100)

4a711f0

* NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts() * DateTimeFormat.prototype.formatToParts()

caridy closed this Aug 14, 2016

rxaviers changed the title ~~[4rd Edition] DateTimeFormat.formatToParts()~~ [4th Edition] DateTimeFormat.formatToParts() Aug 15, 2016

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[4th Edition] DateTimeFormat.formatToParts() #64

[4th Edition] DateTimeFormat.formatToParts() #64

zbraniecki commented Jan 14, 2016

caridy Feb 11, 2016

caridy commented Feb 11, 2016

anba Feb 11, 2016

caridy commented Feb 18, 2016

stasm Feb 19, 2016

zbraniecki commented Mar 4, 2016

stasm Mar 23, 2016

zbraniecki Mar 23, 2016

littledan Mar 25, 2016

caridy Mar 25, 2016

littledan commented Mar 30, 2016

caridy Apr 26, 2016

zbraniecki Apr 30, 2016

caridy Apr 30, 2016

zbraniecki May 4, 2016

caridy May 4, 2016

zbraniecki May 4, 2016

zbraniecki commented May 6, 2016

caridy commented Jun 9, 2016

littledan commented Jun 10, 2016

zbraniecki commented Jun 29, 2016

zbraniecki commented Jul 27, 2016

leobalter Jul 27, 2016

caridy commented Aug 14, 2016


		<emu-clause id="alg-CreateDateTimeParts">

		<h1>CreateDateTimeParts(dateTimeFormat, x)</h1>

[4th Edition] DateTimeFormat.formatToParts() #64

[4th Edition] DateTimeFormat.formatToParts() #64

Conversation

zbraniecki commented Jan 14, 2016

Features

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

caridy commented Feb 11, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

caridy commented Feb 18, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

zbraniecki commented Mar 4, 2016

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

littledan commented Mar 30, 2016

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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

zbraniecki commented May 6, 2016

caridy commented Jun 9, 2016

littledan commented Jun 10, 2016

zbraniecki commented Jun 29, 2016

zbraniecki commented Jul 27, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

caridy commented Aug 14, 2016