WARNING: THIS SITE IS A MIRROR OF GITHUB.COM / IT CANNOT LOGIN OR REGISTER ACCOUNTS / THE CONTENTS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS / THIS SITE ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DISPLAYED CONTENT OR LINKS / IF YOU FOUND SOMETHING MAY NOT GOOD FOR EVERYONE, CONTACT ADMIN AT ilovescratch@foxmail.com
Skip to content

Conversation

@sajdakabir
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #3702

Replaced all occurrences of 'the [[...]] field of the surrounding agent's Agent Record' with the more typical phrasing pattern used in AgentSignifier(), which first assigns the Agent Record to a variable AR and then accesses its fields.

Copy link
Member

@michaelficarra michaelficarra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks great! Thank you!

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Oct 10, 2025

@sajdakabir would you please register as a contributor?

spec.html Outdated
1. Let _rawBytes_ be NumericToRawBytes(_type_, _value_, _isLittleEndian_).
1. If IsSharedArrayBuffer(_arrayBuffer_) is *true*, then
1. Let _execution_ be the [[CandidateExecution]] field of the surrounding agent's Agent Record.
1. Let _AR_ be the Agent Record of the surrounding agent.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's two Let _AR_ in the same abstract operation. Instead, you could have just one, before the first If.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You could, but this also seems fine.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Editorial Conventions says:

in algorithm steps, each alias should only be introduced (such as with "Let") at most once for any possible trace through the algorithm

and there is a trace through this algorithm that hits both Let _AR_.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I see, you're right, they're not exclusive.

@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

@ljharb Am I misinterpreting the "check IPR form" GH Action?

All authors have signed the form, or are delegates or emeriti!

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Oct 11, 2025

it's still not checking the PR branch properly. If you run it locally it'll fail. It's on my list.

@sajdakabir
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michaelficarra do I need to make any changes to the PR?

@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

Yes, let's combine the declarations on lines 45040 and 45044 into one step that precedes both usages, as suggested by @jmdyck. Then it should be good to go.

@sajdakabir
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, let's combine the declarations on lines 45040 and 45044 into one step that precedes both usages, as suggested by @jmdyck. Then it should be good to go.

i’ve made the changes accordingly.

@michaelficarra michaelficarra added the ready to merge Editors believe this PR needs no further reviews, and is ready to land. label Oct 14, 2025
@michaelficarra michaelficarra added ready to merge Editors believe this PR needs no further reviews, and is ready to land. and removed ready to merge Editors believe this PR needs no further reviews, and is ready to land. labels Oct 14, 2025
@sajdakabir
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michaelficarra i hope its fixed now

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Nov 4, 2025

This needs a rebase. Also, should it remain separate, or be squashed?

@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

@ljharb squash please

@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the fix-agent-record-phrasing branch from 8f9457e to e936549 Compare November 4, 2025 17:39
@ljharb ljharb added editorial change request preview ask the bot to trigger a PR preview labels Nov 4, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request preview ask the bot to trigger a PR preview label Nov 4, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 4, 2025

The rendered spec for this PR is available at https://tc39.es/ecma262/pr/3704.

@ljharb ljharb merged commit e936549 into tc39:main Nov 4, 2025
12 checks passed
Jack-Works added a commit to engine262/engine262 that referenced this pull request Nov 18, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

editorial change ready to merge Editors believe this PR needs no further reviews, and is ready to land.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

replace unusual phrasing of field access of Agent Record with typical phrasing

5 participants