New batch of error reports

[A. Sundararajan]

I forgot to mention. Nashorn has --no-syntax-extensions / -nse option 
(default: false) - which switches off all syntactic extensions such as 
unnamed-function-decls, for..each,  anon-class-like new ( new 
java.lang.Runnable() { run: function() { .. } }), closure expressions etc.

-Sundar

On Wednesday 03 July 2013 12:29 PM, André Bargull wrote:
>
> On 7/3/2013 8:37 AM, A. Sundararajan wrote:
>> * 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();
>>
>
> Ah ok, that means `eval("function(){}")` is also possible in Nashorn 
> (I've just checked it), whereas SpiderMonkey/JSC/V8 etc. report a 
> SyntaxError in this case. Concerning Rhino and unnamed function 
> declarations, I remember having done something like this one [1] once. 
> :-)
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/mozilla/rhino/pull/39/files#L72R810
>
>> * 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:
>>>>> [....]
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>