fix: decorator binds getter/setter to ctx.access for public fields#16201
Merged
Conversation
getter or setter to ctx.access for public fieldsgetter/setter to ctx.access for public fields
Collaborator
|
Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/56092/ |
7cf2c98 to
4b62d04
Compare
4b62d04 to
963e2a4
Compare
JLHwung
approved these changes
Jan 5, 2024
7 tasks
nicolo-ribaudo
approved these changes
Jan 8, 2024
Member
Author
|
@nicolo-ribaudo Sorry for my title is not clear enough, according to the specifications |
Member
|
Oh right -- I changed the title because I was trying to make it fit in the commit length. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
https://arai-a.github.io/ecma262-compare/?pr=2417&id=sec-createdecoratoraccessobject
I tried reading the spec and it seems that the closure only needs to capture the
name, not thegetter.Technically, we are not compliant with the spec for private fields, but it seems unlikely that there will be an observable behavioral difference, and that would require more than just modifying the helper, so I'm not doing that yet.