Allow constructor and method signatures in classes

test/cctest/test-parsing.cc

Index: test/cctest/test-parsing.cc
diff --git a/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc b/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc
index 79690f209e367406eddc37914252e05a386892e2..bfbd08c6b137a4e7b16dd62eb571a42f148ea452 100644
--- a/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc
+++ b/test/cctest/test-parsing.cc
@@ -7882,6 +7882,8 @@ TEST(TypedModeClassDeclarations) {
     "class C { [x: number]; }",
     "class C { [x: string] : boolean; }",
     "class C { [x: number] : boolean; }",
+    "class C { constructor (x: number); constructor (x) {} }",

[rossberg, 2016/04/18 11:13:10]

Also try in the opposite order.

[nickie, 2016/04/18 12:35:09]

It is not 100% clear if that should be valid or not.  As I understand it, the
idea in TS is that you can have zero or more function/method/constructor
signatures before the (single) implementation of the
function/method/constructor.

A test with those reversed would pass here because, after parsing, these
signatures are equivalent to empty statements.  But I think it would be
misleading to include such tests, which fail in TS (with a semantic error).

+    "class C { f (x: number) : number; f (x) { return x; } }",

[rossberg, 2016/04/18 11:13:10]

Same here.

     NULL
   };
 
@@ -7897,6 +7899,7 @@ TEST(TypedModeClassDeclarations) {
     "class C { [x: any]; }",
     "class C { [x: any] : any; }",
     "class C { static [x: number]; }",
+    "class C { constructor (x: number) : number; constructor (x) {} }",
     NULL
   };