Editorial: move built-in constructor into its own Terms & Definitions section #3146
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
syg
approved these changes
Aug 16, 2023
bakkot
approved these changes
Aug 16, 2023
bakkot
added
the
ready to merge
michaelficarra
removed
the
ready to merge
michaelficarra
added
ready to merge
ljharb
force-pushed
the
built-in-constructor
branch
from
1675b77 to
0665e7a
Compare
zhangenming
pushed a commit
to zhangenming/ecma262
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 22, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It was weird that there was what appeared to be a
<dfn>for "built-in constructor" in a note of the "built-in object" section when both "built-in function" and "built-in method" had their own sections.Alternatively, for anything with its own actual
<dfn>, I would prefer we don't have a T&D section. But we can follow up with that later.