Issue 11031045: Reject uses of lexical for-loop variable on the RHS.

Issue 11031045: Reject uses of lexical for-loop variable on the RHS. (Closed)

Created:
8 years, 2 months ago by rossberg

Modified:
8 years, 2 months ago

Reviewers:
Michael Starzinger

CC:
v8-dev

Base URL:
https://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge

Visibility:
Public.

More Reviews

Description

Reject uses of lexical for-loop variable on the RHS. R=mstarzinger@chromium.org BUG=v8:2322 Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=12664

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 6

Created: 8 years, 2 months ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

		Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+9 lines, -6 lines)			Patch
	M	src/parser.cc	View		1 chunk	+5 lines, -2 lines	4 comments	Download
	A +	test/mjsunit/regress/regress-2322.js	View		1 chunk	+4 lines, -4 lines	2 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages

Michael Starzinger

LGTM (with nits). https://codereview.chromium.org/11031045/diff/1/src/parser.cc File src/parser.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/11031045/diff/1/src/parser.cc#newcode2794 src/parser.cc:2794: top_scope_->NewUnresolved(factory(), name, interface); For consistency we ...

8 years, 2 months ago (2012-10-05 08:42:36 UTC) #2

rossberg

8 years, 2 months ago (2012-10-05 09:15:02 UTC) #3

https://codereview.chromium.org/11031045/diff/1/src/parser.cc
File src/parser.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11031045/diff/1/src/parser.cc#newcode2794
src/parser.cc:2794: top_scope_->NewUnresolved(factory(), name, interface);
On 2012/10/05 08:42:36, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> For consistency we could also move this loop variable and interface down.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/11031045/diff/1/src/parser.cc#newcode2841
src/parser.cc:2841: Interface* interface = Interface::NewValue();
On 2012/10/05 08:42:36, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> Can we also move the interface down right before the loop variable is created?

Inlined instead.

https://codereview.chromium.org/11031045/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regress-...
File test/mjsunit/regress/regress-2322.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/11031045/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regress-...
test/mjsunit/regress/regress-2322.js:30: assertThrows("for (let x in x);",
SyntaxError);
On 2012/10/05 08:42:36, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> You probably want to add 'use strict' to this test case, to make sure that the
> original problem repros.

Indeed.

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages