Fixes for jridgewell's review #139
Conversation
| <ul> | ||
| <li><ins>the first _referrer_ is the same as the second _referrer_;</ins></li> | ||
| <li><ins>the first _moduleRequest_.[[Specifier]] is the same as the second _moduleRequest_.[[Specifier]];</ins></li> | ||
| <li><ins>AttributesEqual(the first _moduleRequest_.[[Attributes]], the second _moduleRequest_.[[Attributes]]) is *true*;</ins></li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are other places where I used "the same", but this is the only one with normative effects. I prefer to keep "the same" in descriptions and notes, to more easily communicate the underlying meaning.
nicolo-ribaudo
force-pushed
the
jridgewell-review
branch
from
c12d3bd
to
2b0a98e
Compare
spec.emu
Outdated
| @@ -279,16 +280,16 @@ | |||
| </emu-grammar> | |||
| <emu-alg> | |||
| 1. <del>Return ModuleRequests of |FromClause|.</del> | |||
| 1. <ins>Let _specifier_ be SV of the |ModuleSpecifier| contained in |FromClause|.</ins> | |||
| 1. <ins>Return a ModuleRequest Record { [[Specifer]]: _specifier_, [[Attributes]]: « » }.</ins> | |||
| 1. <ins>Let _specifier_ be SV of |ModuleSpecifier|.</ins> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There doesn't seem to be a ModuleSpecifier here, did you mean FromClause? Specifically, I think we need FromClause: from ModuleSpecifier and ModuleSpecifier: StringLiteral cases in this ModuleRequests algorithm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I meant FromClause.
The problem with ModuleRequests for FromClause and ModuleSpeicfier is that ModuleRequests returns a (specifier, attributes) pair, and for FromClause/ModuleSpecifier you cannot return both. SV of FromClause should work here, since SDOs are automatically recursively defined (thus SV of FromClause if the SV of ModuleSpecifier, which is the SV of StringLiteral).
Ref #137 (comment) @jridgewell