Editorial: Replace use of privileged language values in GetOption #689
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
ljharb
approved these changes
Jun 2, 2022
gibson042
force-pushed
the
2022-06-getoption-special-arguments
branch
from
456a69f to
d57e62e
Compare
|
The spec enums are preferred by the 262 editors. We should use the latter commit, especially if this is making its way into ECMA-262. |
|
@michaelficarra is that @tc39/ecma262-editors approval of this PR in its present state? |
|
yup, that's a good use of enums |
|
LGTM I don't want to stamp a PR approval as I'm not fully reviewing the contents of ECMA-402 to verify for any missing parts. The diff seems good, thou. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
cf. #687 (comment)
Use of privileged language values in abstract operation arguments is bad form. The generally preferred alternative is to use spec enum values, but Temporal GetOption currently uses an alternative approach that directly references Types.
I'm not sure which we we want to go here, so I took the Temporal Type-reference approach in the first commit and the conventional ECMA-262 spec-enum-approach in the second for easy adoption of either. I'm interested to hear others' opinions.
Note also that Temporal will move GetOption into ECMA-262, so this is really a question of pre-alignment.