Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove [[ExecutionContext]] #320

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

leobalter
Copy link
Member

@leobalter leobalter requested a review from caridy July 12, 2021 23:27
@leobalter leobalter mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2021
7 tasks
Copy link
Member

@littledan littledan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This patch looks like a correct way to implement @syg's suggestion, but I don't understand the motivation for the change. Stashing an execution context is a sort of common technique to make it easier to get into a Realm, e.g., also found in HTML's environment settings objects.

@leobalter
Copy link
Member Author

My only goal is unblock all the way to Stage 4, so I don't have a strong preference for this PR or otherwise.

Somehow this proposed approach makes importValue a bit closer to Realm#evaluate.

I'm also pretty confident we're going to eventually rename the GetNewRealmContext.

@leobalter
Copy link
Member Author

Pinging @syg as I want to make sure this address his feedback.

@leobalter
Copy link
Member Author

PR rebased with conflicts resolved.

@leobalter
Copy link
Member Author

pinging the @tc39/ecma262-editors here. This PR has no observable changes, but matches a request from @syg on the Stage 3 review. I'd like to confirm this is the desired direction for the eventual PR to ECMA-262.

Copy link
Collaborator

@rwaldron rwaldron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This makes sense.

@caridy
Copy link
Collaborator

caridy commented Jan 25, 2024

@ptomato is this ready for review? what is the latest here?

@ptomato
Copy link
Collaborator

ptomato commented Jan 25, 2024

@caridy I rebased it the other day, but I don't know the context of the original request, so maybe @leobalter or @syg should have a look before merging it.

@caridy
Copy link
Collaborator

caridy commented Feb 8, 2024

maybe @nicolo-ribaudo has opinions about this change.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants