Path to Stage 4

[dminor]

Stage 4

• committee approval
• two implementations and significant in-the-field experience
• ecma262 PR approved
• prepare ecma262 PR

Stage 3

• committee approval
• merge test262 tests -- Add upsert tests test262#4454
• write test262 tests

Stage 2.7

• committee approval
• spec editor signoff
  • @syg
  • @bakkot
  • @michaelficarra
• spec reviewer signoff
  • @michaelficarra
  • @jessealama
• resolve Method name bikeshedding
• resolve Suggestion: lock the map during access to prevent recursive modification

[dminor]

@michaelficarra and @jessealama, I was thinking of bringing this for Stage 2.7 at the April plenary, and I was wondering if you would have time to do the spec review before then?

[michaelficarra]

Yes, I should. Just let me know when the spec text is ready for review.

[jessealama]

I'd be happy to take a look -- just ping me when it's ready!

[dminor]

Thank you both :) It's ready for review now.

[michaelficarra]

In WeakMap.prototype.getOrInsertComputed, let's validate the parameters in order. Swap steps 3 and 4.

Otherwise LGTM. Nice work.

[dminor]

Thank you, the step ordering was fixed in #79

[jessealama]

Looks good to me. In WeakMap.prototype.getOrInsertComputed it looks like there's a leading whitespace character in step 10.

[dminor]

I double checked the whitespace in the spec, and it's consistent between all of the return value steps. It's rendering correctly for me.

[dminor]

@syg @bakkot @michaelficarra, would you have time to look at this as spec editors? I'd like to be able to bring this to plenary for Stage 2.7 in April.

[acutmore]

it looks like there's a leading whitespace character in step 10.

tc39/ecmarkup#623

[bakkot]

LGTM. I might add a NOTE in the Computed variants (after the Call step) pointing out that the map may have been modified during the call (compare Map.prototype.forEach step 7.c.ii).

[michaelficarra]

LGTM editorially. I think the notes are a good idea.

[dminor]

The NOTE is being added in #81

[syg]

Editorially lgtm3.

[CanadaHonk]

FYI for in-the-field experience, I implemented this in Porffor (CanadaHonk/porffor@cfc8fc9) and didn't have any trouble 🎉