Editorial: the Object constructor's parameter is expected to be present #3682
Conversation
arai-a
left a comment
arai-a
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for addressing this!
The change itself looks good, but I think there's some room for the consistency between other sections.
spec.html
Outdated
| <li>has a *"length"* property whose value is *1*<sub>𝔽</sub>.</li> | ||
| <li>has the following additional properties:</li> | ||
| </ul> | ||
| <p>The Object constructor has a [[Prototype]] internal slot whose value is %Function.prototype%. It also has the following properties:</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are multiple sections which still uses the "ul" listing even with 2 items
- https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-properties-of-the-boolean-constructor
- https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-properties-of-the-symbol-constructor
- https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-properties-of-the-symbol-constructor
- and some more
and also I don't see any existing paragraph that uses the new style.
So I think it's better keeping the "ul" listing style, with the length bullet removed, for the consistency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see the benefit of this kind of consistency. I think it's awkward to use a bulleted list to describe just 2 aspects of something, especially when they are as terse as this. I'd prefer to change the existing cases to use phrasing like what I've introduced here, and I also don't think that work would block landing this in its current form because, again, that kind of consistency isn't necessary. I'll open an issue.
edit: #3684
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see the benefit of this kind of consistency.
One benefit is easier automated processing + checking.
E.g., the "WebIDL in ES" effort wants "to produce a representation of ECMAScript built-ins that could be automatically generated from the ECMAScript specification HTML file", and these <ul> elements appear to be relevant to that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, I think it can help human readers. If you want certain kinds of info about an intrinsic object, you can look for a <p>+<ul> combo of a certain 'shape'.
michaelficarra
force-pushed
the
object-mandatory-param
branch
from
9c56644 to
d213786
Compare
|
The rendered spec for this PR is available at https://tc39.es/ecma262/pr/3682. |
|
Reverted back to the list format for now, until we make a more holistic change. Should be good to go. |
bakkot
added
the
ready to merge
ljharb
force-pushed
the
object-mandatory-param
branch
from
d213786 to
594e44e
Compare
Fixes #3627 according to the conclusion from last week's editor call.