Skip to content

State the associated realm when creating objects #206

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
domenic opened this issue Oct 25, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

State the associated realm when creating objects #206

domenic opened this issue Oct 25, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Oct 25, 2016 •
edited by tobie
Loading

Currently, and after #205, there is the statement

This object also must be associated with the ECMAScript global environment associated with the interface object.

I think this should become something like

The return value must also be created such that its [associated Realm] is F.[[Realm]].

When we fix #135, this will be true by default. In the meantime it's just a rephrasing of the legacy "ECMAScript global environment" language in terms of realms.
@domenic domenic mentioned this issue Oct 25, 2016
Merged
tobie added a commit to tobie/webidl that referenced this issue Oct 25, 2016
@tobie
Assertions for output of constructor description.
36699d8 
Fixes whatwg#206.
tobie added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 3, 2016
@tobie
Assertions for output of constructor description.
c95e382 
Fixes #206.
@tobie
Copy link
Collaborator

tobie commented Jan 23, 2017

Is there any reason to have a separate algorithm to construct named constructors from regular ones? Else this seems ripe for refactoring.

@domenic domenic mentioned this issue Feb 3, 2017
Closed
@Ms2ger
Copy link
Member

Ms2ger commented Feb 27, 2019

I think this is clear now.

I think we should probably keep the two algorithms; there's just enough difference that it'd be a pain to extract the common parts.

@domenic domenic closed this as completed Feb 27, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@tobie @Ms2ger @domenic