Till Schneidereit (2014-10-01T16:02:13.000Z)
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-10-15T18:42:02.883Z)
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote: > However, both JSC and v8 cause confusion when they use the term "lazy > parsing". There are plenty of static errors that could not be reported with > a truly lazy parser, i.e., one which actually postpones parsing. v8 for > example uses a lightweight but accurate parser that is supposed to catch > early errors early, but, afaik, doesn't construct an actual ast. > SpiderMonkey in some places uses the term "lazy parsing", too, somewhat unfortunately. Mostly, though, we refer to bytecode-less functions as lazy, and call the initial parsing "syntax parsing". Which should be more indicative of what it actually does. Also, I'm pretty sure that we correctly report these static errors even when they occur in syntax-only parsed functions (modulo bugs in the WIP implementation in [bug 611388][1]). [1]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=611388
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-10-15T18:41:51.633Z)
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote: > However, both JSC and v8 cause confusion when they use the term "lazy > parsing". There are plenty of static errors that could not be reported with > a truly lazy parser, i.e., one which actually postpones parsing. v8 for > example uses a lightweight but accurate parser that is supposed to catch > early errors early, but, afaik, doesn't construct an actual ast. > SpiderMonkey in some places uses the term "lazy parsing", too, somewhat unfortunately. Mostly, though, we refer to bytecode-less functions as lazy, and call the initial parsing "syntax parsing". Which should be more indicative of what it actually does. Also, I'm pretty sure that we correctly report these static errors even when they occur in syntax-only parsed functions (modulo bugs in the WIP implementation in bug 611388[1]). [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=611388