Editorial: remove incorrect assertion in SerializeJSONProperty#3842
Open
Editorial: remove incorrect assertion in SerializeJSONProperty#3842
Conversation
|
The rendered spec preview for this PR is available as a single page at https://tc39.es/ecma262/pr/3842 and as multiple pages at https://tc39.es/ecma262/pr/3842/multipage . |
linusg
approved these changes
May 1, 2026
Member
Mild preference for the former from me, though I agree either would be fine. |
michaelficarra
approved these changes
May 1, 2026
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 join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes a bad assert introduced in #3826. I suspect that assertion was added because a subsequent line passes the asserted-on value to SerializeJSONArray, which that PR thought took an Array; I've fixed that too.
I'm neutral between the narrow-but-not-really-helpful "an Array or a Proxy exotic object" (current state of this PR) vs just "an Object". I don't think it's worth spelling out "an Array or a Proxy for (possibly a Proxy for...) an Array".