New batch of error reports

[A. Sundararajan]

* Yes - function-declaration-as-statement is allowed in nashorn for 
compatibility with other impls.

nashorn jjs tool has these 2 options:

--function-statement-error (Report an error when function declaration is 
used as a statement.)
         param: [true|false]   default: false

--function-statement-warning (Warn when function declaration is used as 
a statement.)
         param: [true|false]   default: false

* On unnamed function declaration: again this seems to be allowed by 
rhino as well. Also, using script engine API, it is possible to eval an 
anon-func-declaraion and call the resulting the script function object:

Example:

     var m = new javax.script.ScriptEngineManager();
     var e = m.getEngineByName("nashorn");
     var func = e.eval("function() { print('Anon function') }");
     func();

* On for..each: I'll file a sub-task to report error in this case. 
Thanks for checking with SpiderMonkey.

Thanks
-Sundar

On Wednesday 03 July 2013 11:53 AM, André Bargull wrote:
>
> On 6/28/2013 7:49 PM, A. Sundararajan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've filed one big umbrella issue for all the issues that you sent 
>> today. (JDK-8019398).
>>
>> Two observations:
>>
>> * with({}) function() {}
>>
>> seems to be accepted by rhino as well.  Need to check with what spec. 
>> says though.
>
> It's an error per spec, because
> (1) FunctionDeclaration productions can only appear at top-level (that 
> means in SourceElement)
> (2) FunctionDeclarations must be named
>
> and it cannot be parsed as an ExpressionStatement due to the lookahead 
> restriction in ExpressionStatement.
>
> For compatibility reasons number (1) needs to be dropped, that means 
> the FunctionDeclaration production moves to the Statement production 
> (with more or less custom semantics, es-discuss has several threads 
> about this issue). But (2) still holds. And an unnamed function 
> declaration is somewhat useless because it's never callable, isn't it?
>
>
>>
>> * for each with initializer - for each(var v=0;false;);
>>
>> is also permitted by rhino as well - "each" is treated as a noise 
>> word in that case. Given that we included for..each for compatibility 
>> with rhino, we might as well leave that noise word (or is it a bug 
>> with rhino as well?)
>>
>
> I'd call this a Rhino bug, too. By checking the commit history, I've 
> found out that this bug was already present when E4X support w.r.t. 
> for-each was initially added. SpiderMonkey reports an error for that 
> code.
>
>
> - André
>
>
>> -Sundar
>>
>>
>> On Friday 28 June 2013 03:04 PM, André Bargull wrote:
>>> [....]
>>
>