Proper handling of future reserved words in strict and normal mode.

test/mjsunit/keywords-and-reserved_words.js

+// Copyright 2011 the V8 project authors. All rights reserved.
+// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
+// met:
+//
+//     * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
+//       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+//     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
+//       copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
+//       disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
+//       with the distribution.
+//     * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its
+//       contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
+//       from this software without specific prior written permission.
+//
+// THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
+// "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
+// LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
+// A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
+// OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
+// SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
+// LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
+// DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
+// THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
+// (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
+// OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
+
+// Test proper handling of keywords, future reserved words and
+// future reserved words in strict mode as specific by 7.6.1 and 7.6.2
+// in ECMA-262.
+
+// This code is based on:
+// http://trac.webkit.org/export/89109/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/js/script-tests/keywords-and-reserved_words.js
+
+function isKeyword(x)
+{
+    try {
+        eval("var "+x+";");

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

Spaces around '+'. 
Even though I think readability can be argued either way.

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

Done.

+    } catch(e) {
+        return true;
+    }
+
+    return false;
+}
+
+function isStrictKeyword(x)
+{
+    try {
+        eval("'use strict'; var "+x+";");
+    } catch(e) {
+        return true;
+    }
+
+    return false;
+}
+
+function classifyIdentifier(x)
+{
+    if (isKeyword(x)) {
+        // All non-strict keywords are also keywords in strict code.
+        if (!isStrictKeyword(x))

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

 Use '{' and '}' when the if statement is not on one line.

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

Done.

+            return "ERROR";

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

and indent by 2.

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

Done.

+        return "keyword";
+    }
+
+    // Check for strict mode future reserved words.
+    if (isStrictKeyword(x))

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

ditto here.

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

Done.

+        return "strict";
+
+    return "identifier";
+}
+
+function testKeyword(word) {
+  // Classify word
+  assertEquals ("keyword", classifyIdentifier(word));

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

Extra space after "assertEquals".

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

Done.

+
+  // Simple use of a keyword
+  assertThrows("var " + word + " = 1;", SyntaxError);
+  if(word != "this")

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

Space after "if", '{' and '}' around body.

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

Done.

+    assertThrows("typeof (" + word + ");", SyntaxError);
+
+  // object literal properties
+  eval("var x = { " + word + " : 42 };");
+  eval("var x = { get " + word + " () {} };");
+  eval("var x = { set " + word + " (value) {} };");
+
+  // object literal with string literal property names
+  eval("var x = { '" + word + "' : 42 };");
+  eval("var x = { get '" + word + "' () { } };");
+  eval("var x = { set '" + word + "' (value) { } };");
+
+  // Function names and arguments
+  assertThrows("function " + word + " () { }", SyntaxError);
+  assertThrows("function foo (" + word + ") {}", SyntaxError);
+  assertThrows("function foo (a, " + word + ") { }", SyntaxError);
+  assertThrows("function foo (" + word + ", a) { }", SyntaxError);
+  assertThrows("function foo (a, " + word + ", b) { }", SyntaxError);
+  assertThrows("var foo = function (" + word + ") { }", SyntaxError);
+
+  // get/set
+  assertThrows("var x = { get foo(" + word + ") { } };", SyntaxError);

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

This is a syntax error for any word. Literal getters cannot have a formal
parameter.

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

This was copied from strict-mode.js. Before I delete it,
what is the reason it was added there in the first place?
On 2011/06/22 20:29:33, Lasse Reichstein wrote:

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/24 12:38:04]

Most likely a bad cut-n-paste :).

+  assertThrows("var x = { set foo(" + word + ") { } };", SyntaxError);
+}
+
+// Not keywords - these are all just identifiers.
+var identifiers = [
+  "x",            "final",
+  "id",           "float",
+  "identifier",   "goto",
+  "keyword",      "int",
+  "strict",       "long",
+  "use",          "native",
+  "abstract",     "short",
+  "boolean",      "synchronized",
+  "byte",         "throws",
+  "char",         "transient",
+  "double",       "volatile" ];

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

Great that you check the ES3 keywords that are not in ES5!
Worth making a comment about.

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

Done. (That's from the WebKit test. Can't take the credit.)
On 2011/06/22 20:29:33, Lasse Reichstein wrote:

+
+for (var i = 0; i < identifiers.length; i++) {
+  assertEquals ("identifier", classifyIdentifier(identifiers[i]));
+}
+
+// 7.6.1.1 Keywords
+var keywords = [
+  "break",        "in",
+  "case",         "instanceof",
+  "catch",        "new",
+  "continue",     "return",

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

"const".
It's an ES5 future reserved word, so it should at least be mentioned there, but
we really treat it as a keyword (not that there is any way to distinguish the
two).

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

Done.

+  "debugger",     "switch",
+  "default",      "this",
+  "delete",       "throw",
+  "do",           "try",
+  "else",         "typeof",
+  "finally",      "var",
+  "for",          "void",
+  "function",     "while",
+  "if",           "with" ];

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

Currently we consider  \u0069f  as a valid identifier (even though it really
isn't according to the specification).
Maybe we should also test that it works.

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

This one is nasty. 'var \u0069f;' works but 'eval("var \u0069f;");' does not.
What exactly would you like to test here?
On 2011/06/22 20:29:33, Lasse Reichstein wrote:

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/24 12:38:04]

You have string-escaping to account for, so it should be eval("var \\u0069f").

Perhaps check that 
  "\\u" + ToHexQuad(keyword.charCodeAt(0)) + keyword.substring(1)
(with a suitable implementation of ToHexQuad) is an identifier, not a keyword.

(But it's not important to do it now, save it for a different CL).

+
+for (var i = 0; i < keywords.length; i++) {
+  testKeyword(keywords[i]);
+}
+
+// 7.6.1.2 Future Reserved Words
+var future_reserved_words = [
+  "class",
+  "enum",
+  "export",
+  "extends",
+  "import",
+  "super" ];
+
+for (var i = 0; i < future_reserved_words.length; i++) {
+  testKeyword(future_reserved_words[i]);
+}
+
+// 7.6.1.2 Future Reserved Words, in strict mode only.
+var future_strict_reserved_words = [
+  "implements",
+  "interface",
+  "let",
+  "package",
+  "private",
+  "protected",
+  "public",
+  "static",
+  "yield" ];
+
+for (var i = 0; i < future_strict_reserved_words.length; i++) {
+  assertEquals ("strict", classifyIdentifier(future_strict_reserved_words[i]));

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011/06/22 20:29:33]

Make a note that the strict mode tests are in strict-mode.js.

[Steven, 2011/06/24 11:34:59]

Done.

+}