Fix handling of escaped "let" and "static" tokens

Fix handling of escaped "let" and "static" tokens

The old handling of escaped keywords erroneously treated escaped versions
of "let" and "static" as ESCAPED_KEYWORD, leading to erroneous errors in
sloppy mode. Moreover, though the class literal parsing code attempted
to fix up the parsing of escaped versions of "static" to allow it in the
right places, that code wasn't complete.

Fixing the scanner to mark escaped "static" as ESCAPED_STRICT_RESERVED_WORD
allows simplifying the class literal parsing code. A little extra code
was needed to properly handle the new treatment of escaped "let".

Note that "yield" is still broken (that is, we're overly restrictive of
escaped "yield" in sloppy mode).

Committed: https://crrev.com/c04ef1ffcbede41529711b33aef70d5d1738287f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#33396}

[adamk, 2016-01-19 19:25:44]

adamk@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ littledan@chromium.org

[caitp (gmail), 2016-01-19 21:17:03]

caitpotter88@gmail.com changed reviewers:
+ caitpotter88@gmail.com

[caitp (gmail), 2016-01-19 21:17:03]

the refactoring looks good

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602013007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc
File test/cctest/test-parsing.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602013007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc...
test/cctest/test-parsing.cc:4468: // Escaped 'static' should be allowed anywhere
missing a `st\u{61}tic foo() {}` error case, since it shouldn't be interpreted
as the static keyword in that case.

[Dan Ehrenberg, 2016-01-19 21:21:09]

littledan@chromium.org changed reviewers:
- caitpotter88@gmail.com

[Dan Ehrenberg, 2016-01-19 21:21:10]

lgtm

Good change. Funny that we previously had tests which actually checked in the
wrong direction before, with no TODO. Do you think we have any others in the
parsing tests?

[adamk, 2016-01-19 21:21:34]

Thanks for the reviews

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602013007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc
File test/cctest/test-parsing.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1602013007/diff/1/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc...
test/cctest/test-parsing.cc:4468: // Escaped 'static' should be allowed anywhere
On 2016/01/19 21:17:03, caitp wrote:
> missing a `st\u{61}tic foo() {}` error case, since it shouldn't be interpreted
> as the static keyword in that case.

That's already tested down in EscapedKeywords.

[adamk, 2016-01-19 21:22:33]

On 2016/01/19 21:21:10, Dan Ehrenberg wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> Good change. Funny that we previously had tests which actually checked in the
> wrong direction before, with no TODO. Do you think we have any others in the
> parsing tests?

Do I think we have bugs? Yes :). But to my knowledge the yield stuff is all
that's still broken for the escaped stuff.

[adamk, 2016-01-19 21:22:36]

The CQ bit was checked by adamk@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-19 21:22:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1602013007/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1602013007/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-19 21:24:04]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-19 21:25:08]

Description was changed from

==========
Fix handling of escaped "let" and "static" tokens

The old handling of escaped keywords erroneously treated escaped versions
of "let" and "static" as ESCAPED_KEYWORD, leading to erroneous errors in
sloppy mode. Moreover, though the class literal parsing code attempted
to fix up the parsing of escaped versions of "static" to allow it in the
right places, that code wasn't complete.

Fixing the scanner to mark escaped "static" as ESCAPED_STRICT_RESERVED_WORD
allows simplifying the class literal parsing code. A little extra code
was needed to properly handle the new treatment of escaped "let".

Note that "yield" is still broken (that is, we're overly restrictive of
escaped "yield" in sloppy mode).
==========

to

==========
Fix handling of escaped "let" and "static" tokens

The old handling of escaped keywords erroneously treated escaped versions
of "let" and "static" as ESCAPED_KEYWORD, leading to erroneous errors in
sloppy mode. Moreover, though the class literal parsing code attempted
to fix up the parsing of escaped versions of "static" to allow it in the
right places, that code wasn't complete.

Fixing the scanner to mark escaped "static" as ESCAPED_STRICT_RESERVED_WORD
allows simplifying the class literal parsing code. A little extra code
was needed to properly handle the new treatment of escaped "let".

Note that "yield" is still broken (that is, we're overly restrictive of
escaped "yield" in sloppy mode).

Committed: https://crrev.com/c04ef1ffcbede41529711b33aef70d5d1738287f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#33396}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-19 21:25:09]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/c04ef1ffcbede41529711b33aef70d5d1738287f
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#33396}