[Merged by Bors] - Implement optional chains #2390
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jedel1043
added
enhancement
jedel1043
requested review from
Razican,
jasonwilliams,
HalidOdat,
RageKnify and
raskad
Test262 conformance changes
Fixed tests (56): |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2390 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 40.03% 39.81% -0.23%
==========================================
Files 305 307 +2
Lines 23336 23547 +211
==========================================
+ Hits 9343 9375 +32
- Misses 13993 14172 +179
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
RageKnify
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2022
Razican
reviewed
Oct 28, 2022
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2022
This Pull Request implements optional chains.
Example:
```Javascript
const adventurer = {
name: 'Alice',
cat: {
name: 'Dinah'
}
};
console.log(adventurer.cat?.name); // Dinah
console.log(adventurer.dog?.name); // undefined
```
Since I needed to implement `Opcode::RotateLeft`, and #2378 had an implementation for `Opcode::RotateRight`, I took the opportunity to integrate both ops into this PR (big thanks to @HalidOdat for the original implementation!).
This PR almost has 100% conformance for the `optional-chaining` test suite. However, there's this one [test](https://github.com/tc39/test262/blob/85373b4ce12a908f8fc517093d95cf2ed2f5ee6a/test/language/expressions/optional-chaining/member-expression.js) that can't be solved until we properly set function names for function expressions in object and class definitions.
|
Pull request successfully merged into main. Build succeeded: |
bors
bot
changed the title
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 2022
Fixes #1917 (fixes the code example given with the hashes) Fixes the order dependent execution of assignment, so the following code works correctly: ```javascript function f(x) { console.log(x) } // used to check the order of execution let a = [[]] (f(1), a)[(f(2), 0)][(f(3), 0)] = (f(4), 123) // 🤮 ``` Prints out: ```bash 1 2 3 4 123 ``` As expected This introduces some opcodes: - ~~`Swap3`: currently used only to keep some previous code working that needs refactoring.~~ - ~~`RotateRight n`: Rotates the `n` top values from the top of the stack to the right by `1`.~~ Already added by #2390 ~~Besides the new opcodes,~~ Some opcodes pop and push order of values on the stack have been changed. To eliminate many swaps and to make this change easier. ~~This PR is still a WIP and needs more refactoring~~ This is now ready for review/merge :)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This Pull Request implements optional chains.
Example:
Since I needed to implement
Opcode::RotateLeft, and #2378 had an implementation forOpcode::RotateRight, I took the opportunity to integrate both ops into this PR (big thanks to @HalidOdat for the original implementation!).This PR almost has 100% conformance for the
optional-chainingtest suite. However, there's this one test that can't be solved until we properly set function names for function expressions in object and class definitions.