Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Resolve function static(){'use strict';} #13

Closed
bakkot opened this issue May 19, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed

Resolve function static(){'use strict';} #13

bakkot opened this issue May 19, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

@bakkot
Copy link
Collaborator

bakkot commented May 19, 2017

See #8 (comment), tc39/ecma262#632, https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4243.

@bakkot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bakkot commented May 19, 2017

The spec should be clarified, and the three of {ecma262, test262, test262-parser-tests} should be made to agree.

@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

And, of course, implementations.

@bakkot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bakkot commented May 20, 2017

Oh, right. Those too.

@RReverser
Copy link

Should we maybe disable (as in, move to separate folder) tests that are controversial due to this for now? Would help with the integration of the test suite to other parsers.

@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

@RReverser I think it's best for the tests to reflect exactly what is in the spec, as is done in test262. Even if we think we are going to change it or if all implementations agree on something else. All implementations that integrate with test262 already maintain a test262 test blacklist. It's not much of a burden to maintain another for the parser tests.

@RReverser
Copy link

@michaelficarra In this case test262 and implementations disagree with parser tests. Until this is further clarified, it would be nice to have it explicitly stated as controversial.

@bakkot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bakkot commented Mar 30, 2018

Fixed by #17 / tc39/ecma262#1158.

@bakkot bakkot closed this as completed Mar 30, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants