Additionally removed the `arrow-function` feature for
test/language/eval-code/direct/new.target-fn.js as it is not testing
arrow-functions, but they are mentioned in the preamble.
Thsi test for the parsing of string literals was expressed using `eval`.
This made the test more complex than necessary and also prevented the
test from providing value to ECMAScript parsers.
Remove the use of `eval` and instead express the expectation with
literal source text.
This test is technically valid because it does trigger a SyntaxError in
conforming runtimes. However, it was authored and documented to test
LegacyOctalEscapeSequence, but due to an apparent typo, it actually
demonstrates an unrelated parsing error.
Because 'legacy-octal-escape-sequence-stricts.js' sufficiently tests the
restriction on LegacyOctalEscapeSequence, remove this test rather than
correct it.
This test for string literals asserts the restriction on
LegacyOctalEscapeSequence in strict mode. It is not sufficiently
distinct from the test 'legacy-octal-escape-sequence-stricts.js' to
warrant inclusion in the test suite. Because that test includes much
more thorough documentation, it should be preferred.
A number of tests for string literals assert the restriction on
LegacyOctalEscapeSequence in strict mode code and differ only in the
escape sequence under test. Although each is valid, none of the escape
sequences are sufficiently distinct from the test
'legacy-octal-escape-sequence-stricts.js' to warrant their inclusion in
the test suite. Because that test's use of literal code makes it
consumable by parsers and because that test includes much more thorough
documentation, it should be preferred.
Summary of LegacyOctalEscapeSequences under test in the removed files:
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-10-s.js: eval('var x = " \\10 ";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-11-s.js: eval('var x = "\\16";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-12-s.js: eval('var x = "\\17";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-13-s.js: eval('var x = "\\30";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-14-s.js: eval('var x = "\\31";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-15-s.js: eval('var x = "\\37";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-16-s.js: eval('var x = "\\400";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-17-s.js: eval('var x = "\\411";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-18-s.js: eval('var x = "\\43a";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-19-s.js: eval('var x = "\\463";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-2-s.js: eval('var x = "\\1";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-20-s.js: eval('var x = "\\474";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-21-s.js: eval('var x = "\\77";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-22-s.js: eval('var x = "\\777";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-23-s.js: eval('var x = "\\000";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-24-s.js: eval('var x = "\\001";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-25-s.js: eval('var x = "\\106";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-26-s.js: eval('var x = "\\207";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-27-s.js: eval('var x = "\\377";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-28-s.js: eval('var x = "\\376";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-29-s.js: eval('var x = "\\3760";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-3-s.js: eval('var x = "a\\4";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-32-s.js: eval('var x = "\\1\\1";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-33-s.js: eval('var x = "\\1\\2\\7";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-4-s.js: eval('var x = "z\\7";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-5-s.js: eval('var x = "\\00a";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-6-s.js: eval('var x = "\\01z";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-7-s.js: eval('var x = "a\\03z";');
test/language/literals/string/7.8.4-8-s.js: eval('var x = " \\06";');
Test262 already includes tests to ensure the correct runtime semantics
for these forms. Add equivalent tests designed to verify that the
equivalent parsing behavior is also observed.
Verify runtime semantics through assignment to an unresolvable
reference, reducing the complexity of tests that previously relied on
the semantics of the `eval` function.
Rick Waldron
Leo Balter
Valerie R Young
Thomas Wood
Mike Pennisi