Editorial: Allocate-and-use in MakeMatchIndicesIndexPairArray for refinement #3495
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
bakkot
approved these changes
Dec 18, 2024
syg
approved these changes
Jan 8, 2025
ljharb
force-pushed
the
make-match-indicies
branch
from
5e03a5a to
72c1a4e
Compare
michaelficarra
added
the
ready to merge
ljharb
pushed a commit
to kimjg1119/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2025
ljharb
force-pushed
the
make-match-indicies
branch
from
72c1a4e to
ecef763
Compare
ljharb
force-pushed
the
make-match-indicies
branch
from
ecef763 to
1f6ac07
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In step 9.e of MakeMatchIndicesIndexPairArray:
groupNames[i - 1]is refined to a non-undefined value. However, the current implementation of ESMeta does not support field-level refinement. To remove unsatisfactory alarms, it would helpful to first assign the value to a temporary variable before we support the feature.c.f. Alternatively, this could be achieved by adding an identical assertion below step 9.e.ii. I'm not sure this is a better way though.