Implement abstract operation GetPrototypeFromConstructor

[jedel1043]

This Pull Request reduces the repetition on constructors when obtaining the default prototype of an object.
Extracted the pattern from #1552, thanks to @Razican :)

It changes the following:

• Implements the abstract operation GetPrototypeFromConstructor

• Replaces the pattern:

let proto = new_target
        .as_object()
        .and_then(|obj| {
            obj.__get__(&PROTOTYPE.into(), obj.clone().into(), context)
                .map(|o| o.as_object())
                .transpose()
        })
        .transpose()?
        .unwrap_or_else(default_proto);

with

let proto = get_prototype_from_constructor(
                new_target,
                |intrinsics| intrinsics.object_object().prototype(),
                context,
            )?;

This also allows for an easy replacement of intrinsics with the intrinsic objects of a realm when we eventually implement multiple realms.

[github-actions]

Test262 conformance changes:

Test result	master count	PR count	difference
Total	80,685	80,685	0
Passed	32,968	32,981	+13
Ignored	15,818	15,818	0
Failed	31,899	31,886	-13
Panics	0	0	0
Conformance	40.86%	40.88%	+0.02%

Fixed tests (13):

test/language/statements/function/13.2-12-s.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/language/statements/function/13.2-12-s.js (previously Failed)
test/language/statements/function/13.2-20-s.js (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Function/prototype/apply/S15.3.4.3_A1_T1.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Function/prototype/apply/S15.3.4.3_A1_T1.js (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Function/prototype/apply/S15.3.4.3_A7_T9.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Function/prototype/apply/S15.3.4.3_A7_T9.js (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Function/prototype/call/S15.3.4.4_A6_T9.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Function/prototype/call/S15.3.4.4_A6_T9.js (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Function/prototype/call/S15.3.4.4_A1_T1.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Function/prototype/call/S15.3.4.4_A1_T1.js (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/String/prototype/slice/S15.5.4.13_A1_T5.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/String/prototype/slice/S15.5.4.13_A1_T5.js (previously Failed)

[Razican]

Should this be implemented as part of Context?

[raskad]

I'm not sure if the intrinsicDefaultProto should just be a FnOnce(&Context) -> JsObject. It is not probable, but I think this function could be misused with that definition. I think if we implement this, we should honor the 1. Assert: intrinsicDefaultProto is this specification's name of an intrinsic object. somewhat. Maybe we could use an enum as the argument and do the Context.standard_objects().some_object().prototype() in the function?

The spec defines this as an ordinary object internal method, so I think the place is good.

[jedel1043]

I'm not sure if the intrinsicDefaultProto should just be a FnOnce(&Context) -> JsObject. It is not probable, but I think this function could be misused with that definition. I think if we implement this, we should honor the 1. Assert: intrinsicDefaultProto is this specification's name of an intrinsic object. somewhat. Maybe we could use an enum as the argument and do the Context.standard_objects().some_object().prototype() in the function?

The spec defines this as an ordinary object internal method, so I think the place is good.

I could pass a reference to StandardObjects instead of Context, and that way we avoid the boilerplate and the giant match of 42 variants

[raskad]

Looks good to me.

I commented on a few places where we use object_object() while a specific StandardConstructor exists. I'm curious if changing those would result in actual changes.

[jedel1043]

Looks good to me.

I commented on a few places where we use object_object() while a specific StandardConstructor exists. I'm curious if changing those would result in actual changes.

Let's see if this works

[raskad]

Nice work!

[jedel1043]

Nice work!

Good catch!

[Razican]

I think it would be easier to implement it by using FnOnce(&StandardObjects) -> &StandardConstructor. I did this in #1552 in my latest changes, but it would allow passing StandardObjects::typed_array_object and things like that, so directly the function.

[jedel1043]

I think it would be easier to implement it by using FnOnce(&StandardObjects) -> &StandardConstructor. I did this in #1552 in my latest changes, but it would allow passing StandardObjects::typed_array_object and things like that, so directly the function.

Yep, this is the best option.

[Razican]

Now it looks great! :) thanks!