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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Editorial: Correct usage of 'Let'/'Set' in various algorithms #2365

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 1, 2021
Merged

Editorial: Correct usage of 'Let'/'Set' in various algorithms #2365

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 1, 2021

Conversation

h2oche
Copy link
Contributor

@h2oche h2oche commented Mar 31, 2021

There are some algorithms where same variable is defined twice :

Plus, for notation consistency, it might be better to remove variables named hasXX in 8.2.

ljharb
ljharb reviewed Mar 31, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@ljharb ljharb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While it’s not incorrect to reuse variable names like this, it does seem clearer to me to in-line the condition for the early returns.

michaelficarra
michaelficarra approved these changes Mar 31, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@michaelficarra michaelficarra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM other than existing comments.

syg
syg approved these changes Mar 31, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@syg syg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm2 with existing comments resolved

@h2oche h2oche force-pushed the duplicated-definitions branch from 883c39c to 254191d Compare April 1, 2021 07:21
@h2oche
Copy link
Contributor Author

h2oche commented Apr 1, 2021

@ljharb Applied your suggestions

ljharb
ljharb reviewed Apr 1, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@ljharb ljharb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thanks

@bakkot bakkot added the ready to merge Editors believe this PR needs no further reviews, and is ready to land. label Apr 1, 2021
@bakkot
Copy link
Contributor

bakkot commented Apr 1, 2021

Thanks @h2oche! Can I ask, are you using some automated tooling to find these, or just checking manually?

@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the duplicated-definitions branch from 254191d to a12b4d4 Compare April 1, 2021 21:45
@ljharb ljharb merged commit a12b4d4 into tc39:master Apr 1, 2021
@h2oche
Copy link
Contributor Author

h2oche commented Apr 2, 2021

Hello, @bakkot.
Yes, we do. I'm a graduate student in the programming language research group at KAIST.
Currently, we are trying to perform type analysis to automatically detect specification bugs.
All the bugs in pull requests (#2359, #2362, #2363, #2365) are detected by our tool.
We are really happy that you are curious about our automatic approach.
If you are interested in the detail of our work, we can discuss more in a mail.
This is my email address: h2oche@kaist.ac.kr.

@kimjg1119 kimjg1119 mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ljharb ljharb ljharb left review comments

@syg syg syg approved these changes

@michaelficarra michaelficarra michaelficarra approved these changes

@bakkot bakkot bakkot approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
editorial change ready to merge Editors believe this PR needs no further reviews, and is ready to land.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@h2oche @bakkot @ljharb @syg @michaelficarra