[modules] Remove outdated TODO in module namespace objects test

[modules] Remove outdated TODO in module namespace objects test

As of https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/commit/13906140a, the spec
now returns true when [[SetPrototypeOf]] is invoked with null
on a module namespace object.

R=neis@chromium.org
BUG=v8:1569
Committed: https://crrev.com/6505e022662d368e09e28148d24ab1d0a4887aa4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41575}

[neis, 2016-12-08 08:18:59]

lgtm, thanks.

Shall I remove @@iterator now?

[neis, 2016-12-08 08:19:09]

The CQ bit was checked by neis@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-08 08:19:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-08 08:43:33]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1481185149233610, "parent_rev":
"36d0c55fab7744a312e71fe0f056c0b1e79d58f4", "commit_rev":
"7b8e1d0f218d1116d7c9e531acee25194e25b82e"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-08 08:43:36]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-08 08:43:57]

Description was changed from

==========
[modules] Remove outdated TODO in module namespace objects test

As of https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/commit/13906140a, the spec
now returns true when [[SetPrototypeOf]] is invoked with null
on a module namespace object.

R=neis@chromium.org
BUG=v8:1569
==========

to

==========
[modules] Remove outdated TODO in module namespace objects test

As of https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/commit/13906140a, the spec
now returns true when [[SetPrototypeOf]] is invoked with null
on a module namespace object.

R=neis@chromium.org
BUG=v8:1569

Committed: https://crrev.com/6505e022662d368e09e28148d24ab1d0a4887aa4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41575}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-08 08:43:58]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/6505e022662d368e09e28148d24ab1d0a4887aa4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41575}

[adamk, 2016-12-08 16:48:49]

On 2016/12/08 08:18:59, neis wrote:
> lgtm, thanks.
> 
> Shall I remove @@iterator now?

Feel free to prepare a CL, but we should wait till the PR is merged into the
spec before landing I'd say.