Editorial: call MakeClassConstructor on default class constructor #3212
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
|
Currently, |
|
@Jack-Works Any reason why you wouldn't just include this change as part of the pattern matching proposal? What value does it add otherwise? |
When I read the spec I was surprised that the built-in constructor does not have a [[IsClassConstructor]] field. I believe this PR can make this part clearer even if the pattern-matching proposal finally does not need what this PR does. |
|
Editors are OK with landing this but still need to review for correctness. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The new pattern-matching proposal expects
[[IsClassConstructor]]to be true for class constructors. The current spec only sets this field for ECMAScript functions. This PR expands it to default class constructors.This should be an editorial change.