-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 411
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
feat(boa): adds splice method #1365
Conversation
Actually, worked out why it stalls, and it's been patched in #1351 since it's due to array_species_create not having upper limits setup. |
Test262 conformance changes:
Fixed tests (120):
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good :)
Could we get documentation per step like some other builtin function, makes it much easier to follow the spec.
fce34d7
to
bffa4b4
Compare
Some weird behaviour occurs when setting a property as non writable on an object, where for instance on the failing test, |
- adds array.prototype.splice - todo: fix stalls at certain testcases Closes boa-dev#36
- adds array.prototype.splice - todo: fix stalls at certain testcases Closes boa-dev#36
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me. I added some recommendations, though. I think it needs a rebase :)
Test262 conformance changes:
Fixed tests (120):
|
It seems that the test262 submodule is outdated. Could you do "git submodule update"? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good job! I have some advices to improve the readability. Everything else looks great!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great work! Pretty weird how the spec manipulated the reversed indexes. Maybe we will open a PR to improve those loops on the spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good!
This Pull Request fixes/closes #36.
It changes the following: