editorial: refactor GetModuleSource() to instead use [[ModuleSource]] field #69
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
guybedford
force-pushed
the
getmodulesource-modulesource
branch
from
7afb8ae to
1a619df
Compare
nicolo-ribaudo
approved these changes
Dec 1, 2024
Co-authored-by: Nicolò Ribaudo <nicolo.ribaudo@gmail.com>
|
Thanks, added your wording correction. That is indeed a bug in the wording for host implementations although it's been implemented correctly in the Wasm ESM integration spec. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This specifies #68, effectively upstreaming the
[[ModuleSource]]field from ESM Phase Imports for all abstract module sources.Overall this does seem to provide for simpler spec text.
This moves the SyntaxError from being host-defined into being a generic ECMA-262 syntax error, but this also seems a nicer simplification, and also possible to classify as editorial.
Leaving this open pending further discussion about this.