Skip to content
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

Deleted lines should not be considered to return a completion record from an AO #609

Closed
ptomato opened this issue Sep 12, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #615
Closed

Deleted lines should not be considered to return a completion record from an AO #609

ptomato opened this issue Sep 12, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #615

Comments

@ptomato
Copy link
Contributor

ptomato commented Sep 12, 2024

Test case:

<emu-clause id="sec-foobar" type="abstract operation">
  <h1>
    FooBar (
      _v_: an ECMAScript language value,
    ): <ins>an integer</ins><del>either a normal completion containing an integer, or a throw completion</del>
  </h1>
  <dl class="header">
    <dt>description</dt>
    <dd></dd>
  </dl>
  <emu-alg>
    1. <del>Throw a *RangeError* exception.</del>
    1. Return 42.
  </emu-alg>
</emu-clause>

This produces:

(file):5:23: unknown extra text in header
(file):12:13: this would return a Completion Record, but the containing AO is declared not to return a Completion Record

Looks like there is something that needs to be handled differently about the structured header return type, as well.

ptomato added a commit to tc39/proposal-temporal that referenced this issue Sep 12, 2024
It can no longer throw, but we didn't notice that because of a bug in
ecmarkup (tc39/ecmarkup#609). Change the return
type, adjust the call sites not to unwrap the completion, and work around
the ecmarkup bug with an editor's note and by putting the offending line
in backticks so that ecmarkup doesn't consider it semantically.
ptomato added a commit to tc39/proposal-temporal that referenced this issue Sep 18, 2024
It can no longer throw, but we didn't notice that because of a bug in
ecmarkup (tc39/ecmarkup#609). Change the return
type, adjust the call sites not to unwrap the completion, and work around
the ecmarkup bug with an editor's note and by putting the offending line
in backticks so that ecmarkup doesn't consider it semantically.
Ms2ger pushed a commit to tc39/proposal-temporal that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2024
It can no longer throw, but we didn't notice that because of a bug in
ecmarkup (tc39/ecmarkup#609). Change the return
type, adjust the call sites not to unwrap the completion, and work around
the ecmarkup bug with an editor's note and by putting the offending line
in backticks so that ecmarkup doesn't consider it semantically.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant