-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Editorial: Consistency for the term "fully populated Property Descriptor" #1241
Editorial: Consistency for the term "fully populated Property Descriptor" #1241
Conversation
spec.html
Outdated
@@ -1554,7 +1554,7 @@ <h2>[[GetOwnProperty]] (_P_)</h2> | |||
The Type of the return value must be either Property Descriptor or Undefined. | |||
</li> | |||
<li> | |||
If the Type of the return value is Property Descriptor, the return value must be a complete property descriptor (see <emu-xref href="#sec-completepropertydescriptor"></emu-xref>). | |||
If the Type of the return value is Property Descriptor, the return value must be a fully populated Property Descriptor (see <emu-xref href="#sec-completepropertydescriptor"></emu-xref>). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since the section is named “complete”, should we not go with that for the wording?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I opted to use the term as already defined in the section defining Property Descriptors (sec-property-descriptor-specification-type
). Swapping all to be "complete Property Descriptors" is also ok with me, a similar number of changed lines are required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair - https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-completepropertydescriptor seems to me the stronger precedent. Let’s see what others think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On the other hand, we may wish to avoid possible confusion between complete (verb) and complete (adjective).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
“completed” for the adjective case would work fine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the link to "CompletePropertyDescriptor" in this context is a bit odd; I would expect a definition rather than an algorithm.
I like the change to "fully populated...". Can we just remove the link to the algorithm?
60107eb
to
31f5c30
Compare
Rebased. I applied @zenparsing's suggestion to just drop the link to CompletePropertyDescriptor. And since I considered adding a |
…tor" (tc39#1241) Previously a mixture of "complete property descriptor" and "fully populated property descriptor" was used. Also capitalise "Property Descriptor" so that definition detection kicks in elsewhere, consistent with the rest of the spec.
31f5c30
to
e490377
Compare
…tor" (tc39#1241) Previously a mixture of "complete property descriptor" and "fully populated property descriptor" was used. Also capitalise "Property Descriptor" so that definition detection kicks in elsewhere, consistent with the rest of the spec.
e490377
to
8f82b21
Compare
Previously a mixture of "complete property descriptor" and "fully populated property descriptor" was used. Change to use the defined "fully populated property descriptor" term.
Also capitalise "Property Descriptor" so that definition detection (hopefully) kicks in elsewhere, to be consistent with the rest of the spec.