Elide var when emitting a module merged with an ES6 class#2750
Merged
Conversation
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs to be split up into like 3-4 more lines
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, I lose count of the parentheses very quickly
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if you could just get away with checking the parent
Contributor
|
👍 |
rbuckton
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2015
Elide var when emitting a module merged with an ES6 class
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.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #2458.
In ES6 it is illegal to redeclare a lexically bound name (such as the name of a
let,const, orclassdeclaration). When we merge internal modules with classes, we emit the following for--target ES6:This change elides the
vardeclaration for a module given the following conditions:classdeclaration in the same lexical scope.As a result, the new output would be: