Conversation
|
There are three occurrences of "For each event" that should probably be changed to "For each Memory event". And similarly one occurrence of "there exists an event". |
gibson042
force-pushed
the
2024-08-cleanup-memory-model
branch
from
3097e97 to
8e2797a
Compare
|
@jmdyck Thanks, updated. |
gibson042
force-pushed
the
2024-08-cleanup-memory-model
branch
from
d03bcb1 to
a3b78dd
Compare
|
Thanks for the thorough review, @syg. I've incorporated the remaining suggests and rebased. |
| 1. For each event _E_ of EventSet(_execution_), do | ||
| 1. If _E_ is not in SharedDataBlockEventSet(_execution_), add _E_ to _events_. | ||
| 1. Return _events_. | ||
| 1. Return the subtraction of SharedDataBlockEventSet(_execution_) from EventSet(_execution_). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer not to rely on this novel phrasing. It's just as easy to be explicit about it.
| 1. Return the subtraction of SharedDataBlockEventSet(_execution_) from EventSet(_execution_). | |
| 1. Return a new Set that contains all elements of EventSet(_execution_) that are not in SharedDataBlockEventSet(_execution_). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| 1. Return the subtraction of SharedDataBlockEventSet(_execution_) from EventSet(_execution_). | |
| 1. Return a new Set containing all elements of EventSet(_execution_) that are not in SharedDataBlockEventSet(_execution_). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you dislike about subtraction @michaelficarra?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't dislike it at all, but if we did use it, I'd at least want to say somewhere in the Set section that this is a thing we can do (and possibly explicitly define it). Instead though, it's basically just as easy to write it out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, it already does say that: The Set and Relation Specification Types (emphasis mine)
Sets may be unioned, intersected, or subtracted from each other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh! I didn't know that was there. In that case, yeah, using subtraction is fine.
|
@michaelficarra Thanks for the suggestions. Updated. |
bakkot
left a comment
bakkot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM except that I really don't like the different capitalization on "Memory event" vs "memory range". These are using "memory" in the same sense, and should match.
syg
added
the
ready to merge
|
Should this be marked "ready to merge" when it has conflicts with main? |
gibson042
force-pushed
the
2024-08-cleanup-memory-model
branch
from
504834b to
d635725
Compare
|
Rebased and resolved conflicts. |
|
The rendered spec for this PR is available at https://tc39.es/ecma262/pr/3396. |
ljharb
force-pushed
the
2024-08-cleanup-memory-model
branch
from
d635725 to
91b7e4c
Compare
6 participants
A sequence of mostly-independent commits (separable upon request) that fixes some typos, improves internal consistency, and takes better advantage of auto-linking to explain the memory model and the buffer/view operations that build upon it.