fix: Throws on new foo?.bar!()
#15439
Merged
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
liuxingbaoyu
added
PR: Spec Compliance 👓
liuxingbaoyu
commented
Feb 19, 2023
Comment on lines
+40
to
+69
| { | ||
| "type": "ExpressionStatement", | ||
| "start":16,"end":32,"loc":{"start":{"line":2,"column":0,"index":16},"end":{"line":2,"column":16,"index":32}}, | ||
| "expression": { | ||
| "type": "OptionalCallExpression", | ||
| "start":16,"end":31,"loc":{"start":{"line":2,"column":0,"index":16},"end":{"line":2,"column":15,"index":31}}, | ||
| "callee": { | ||
| "type": "NewExpression", | ||
| "start":16,"end":27,"loc":{"start":{"line":2,"column":0,"index":16},"end":{"line":2,"column":11,"index":27}}, | ||
| "callee": { | ||
| "type": "MemberExpression", | ||
| "start":20,"end":27,"loc":{"start":{"line":2,"column":4,"index":20},"end":{"line":2,"column":11,"index":27}}, | ||
| "object": { | ||
| "type": "Identifier", | ||
| "start":20,"end":23,"loc":{"start":{"line":2,"column":4,"index":20},"end":{"line":2,"column":7,"index":23},"identifierName":"foo"}, | ||
| "name": "foo" | ||
| }, | ||
| "computed": false, | ||
| "property": { | ||
| "type": "Identifier", | ||
| "start":24,"end":27,"loc":{"start":{"line":2,"column":8,"index":24},"end":{"line":2,"column":11,"index":27},"identifierName":"bar"}, | ||
| "name": "bar" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "arguments": [] | ||
| }, | ||
| "optional": true, | ||
| "arguments": [] | ||
| } | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a change here, now we keep ?. in ast.
This aligns their behavior.
new foo?. bar();
new foo. bar?.();
|
Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/53990/ |
|
Drive-by suggestion: Might be good to have a test for the (equally awkward) syntax |
Comment on lines
6
to
7
| foo?.[0] | ||
| foo![0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we test new foo?.[0]; and new foo![0]; instead?
JLHwung
reviewed
Feb 20, 2023
| @@ -1919,17 +1924,6 @@ export default abstract class ExpressionParser extends LValParser { | |||
| node.callee = this.parseNoCallExpr(); | |||
| if (node.callee.type === "Import") { | |||
| this.raise(Errors.ImportCallNotNewExpression, { at: node.callee }); | |||
| } else if ( | |||
| this.isOptionalChain(node.callee) && | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you check if we can remove the isOptionalChain implementation now?
nicolo-ribaudo
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2023
github-actions
bot
added
the
outdated
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
All credit to @JLHwung, thanks!