Editorial: Refactor to replace camelCase slot and field names with PascalCase equivalents #770
Conversation
equivalent, carefully avoiding changes to observable behaviour which might be thereby generated.
| 1. For each row in <emu-xref href="#table-datetimeformat-components"></emu-xref>, except the header row, in table order, do | ||
| 1. Let _prop_ be the name given in the Property column of the row. | ||
| 1. If _bestFormat_ has a field [[<_prop_>]], then | ||
| 1. Let _p_ be _bestFormat_.[[<_prop_>]]. | ||
| 1. Let _first_ be the ASCII-uppercase of the substring of _prop_ from 0 to 1. | ||
| 1. Let _rest_ be the substring of prop from 1. | ||
| 1. Let _field_ be the string-concatenation of _first_ and _rest_. | ||
| 1. If _bestFormat_ has a field [[<_field_>]], then | ||
| 1. Let _p_ be _bestFormat_.[[<_field_>]]. | ||
| 1. Set _dateTimeFormat_'s internal slot whose name is the Internal Slot column of the row to _p_. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This new string manipulation and case-variant fallback makes me nervous, but I think it can now be dropped entirely (assuming field name capitalization and corresponding updates to DateTimeStyleFormat and BasicFormatMatcher and BestFitFormatMatcher.
| 1. For each row in <emu-xref href="#table-datetimeformat-components"></emu-xref>, except the header row, in table order, do | |
| 1. Let _prop_ be the name given in the Property column of the row. | |
| 1. If _bestFormat_ has a field [[<_prop_>]], then | |
| 1. Let _p_ be _bestFormat_.[[<_prop_>]]. | |
| 1. Let _first_ be the ASCII-uppercase of the substring of _prop_ from 0 to 1. | |
| 1. Let _rest_ be the substring of prop from 1. | |
| 1. Let _field_ be the string-concatenation of _first_ and _rest_. | |
| 1. If _bestFormat_ has a field [[<_field_>]], then | |
| 1. Let _p_ be _bestFormat_.[[<_field_>]]. | |
| 1. Set _dateTimeFormat_'s internal slot whose name is the Internal Slot column of the row to _p_. | |
| 1. For each row in <emu-xref href="#table-datetimeformat-components"></emu-xref>, except the header row, in table order, do | |
| 1. Let _name_ be the name given in the Internal Slot/Field column of the row. | |
| 1. If _bestFormat_ has a field whose name is _name_, then | |
| 1. Let _val_ be the value of the field of _bestFormat_ whose name is _name_. | |
| 1. Set _dateTimeFormat_'s internal slot whose name is _name_ to _val_. |
| <li>A [[pattern]] field, whose value is a String value that contains for each of the date and time format component fields of the record a substring starting with *"{"*, followed by the name of the field, followed by *"}"*.</li> | ||
| <li>If the record has an [[hour]] field, it must also have a [[pattern12]] field, whose value is a String value that, in addition to the substrings of the [[pattern]] field, contains at least one of the substrings *"{ampm}"* or *"{dayPeriod}"*.</li> | ||
| <li>If the record has a [[year]] field, the [[pattern]] and [[pattern12]] values may contain the substrings *"{yearName}"* and *"{relatedYear}"*.</li> | ||
| <li>A [[Pattern]] field, whose value is a String value that contains for each of the date and time format component fields of the record a substring starting with *"{"*, followed by the name of the field, followed by *"}"*.</li> | ||
| <li>If the record has an [[Hour]] field, it must also have a [[Pattern12]] field, whose value is a String value that, in addition to the substrings of the [[Pattern]] field, contains at least one of the substrings *"{ampm}"* or *"{dayPeriod}"*.</li> | ||
| <li>If the record has a [[Year]] field, the [[Pattern]] and [[Pattern12]] values may contain the substrings *"{yearName}"* and *"{relatedYear}"*.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately, capitalizing the field names in [[LocaleData]].[[<locale>]].[[Formats]].[[<calendar>]] disrupts this and related mechanisms because of the coupling between field name and brace-enclosed field value substrings (e.g., an "{hour}:{minute} {ampm}" pattern is specifically referencing fields named [[hour]], [[minute]], and [[ampm]]). It's probably most expedient to leave alone any field named after a unit/date–time element/etc., unless you want to do a deeper dive on the format patterns and FormatDateTimePattern's transformation of them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
blast, I should have caught that! I'm guessing it's correct to assume that a deeper dive on FormatDateTimePattern should be understood as a very low priority.
| <li>If the record has an [[hour]] field, it must also have a [[rangePatterns12]] field. Its value is similar to the Record in [[rangePatterns]], but it uses a String similar to [[pattern12]] for each part of the range pattern.</li> | ||
| <li>If the record has a [[year]] field, the [[rangePatterns]] and [[rangePatterns12]] fields may contain range patterns where the [[Pattern]] values may contain the substrings *"{yearName}"* and *"{relatedYear}"*.</li> | ||
| <li>If the record has an [[Hour]] field, it must also have a [[RangePatterns12]] field. Its value is similar to the Record in [[RangePatterns]], but it uses a String similar to [[Pattern12]] for each part of the range pattern.</li> | ||
| <li>If the record has a [[Year]] field, the [[RangePatterns]] and [[RangePatterns12]] fields may contain range patterns where the [[Pattern]] values may contain the substrings *"{yearName}"* and *"{relatedYear}"*.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an example of the inconsistency; [[Year]] and {yearName} and {relatedYear} are elements of the same namespace even though they don't look like it.
| 1. Let _timeFormat_ be _styles_.[[TimeFormat]].[[<_timeStyle_>]]. | ||
| 1. Let _first_ be the ASCII-uppercase of the substring of _timeStyle_ from 0 to 1. | ||
| 1. Let _rest_ be the substring of _timeStyle_ from 1. | ||
| 1. Let _timeStyleField_ be the string-concatenation of _first_ and _rest_. | ||
| 1. Let _timeFormat_ be _styles_.[[TimeFormat]].[[<_timeStyleField_>]]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More string manipulation that we don't want in the spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's best practice here -- table iteration when possible, or just accept that this is a place where by necessity 402 style guidelines must diverge from 262?
| 1. Assert: _styleFields_ is a Record (see <emu-xref href="#sec-Intl.DisplayNames-internal-slots"></emu-xref>). | ||
| 1. Set _displayNames_.[[Fields]] to _styleFields_. | ||
| 1. Return _displayNames_. | ||
| </emu-alg> | ||
| <emu-table id="table-displaynames-types"> | ||
| <emu-caption>Fields Corresponding to Type Names</emu-caption> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ugh, there must be a better way.
typo fix Co-authored-by: Richard Gibson <[email protected]>
table-iteration correction Co-authored-by: Richard Gibson <[email protected]>
|
Temperature check: would it be most appropriate to:
|
|
closed; abandoned for now |
fix #81
Changed slot/field names, carefully avoiding changes to observable behavior that could result from dynamic accesses to those slots. The only names left unchanged are two-letter names like [[co]] and [[nu]], and slots/fields only accessed dynamically.