| 05:17 | <ljharb> | devsnek: why? |
| 05:18 | <ljharb> | devsnek: position can be negative, or larger then len |
| 13:08 | <devsnek> | ljharb: this step |
| 13:08 | <devsnek> | > Let searchLen be the length of searchStr. |
| 14:38 | <ljharb> | step 9, why should that be removed? |
| 14:38 | <ljharb> | i want to pull more things out of the last step, not squish more into it |
| 15:03 | <devsnek> | ljharb: it's step 8 |
| 15:03 | <devsnek> | are we looking at different specs or something |
| 15:04 | <ljharb> | the one on GitHub? |
| 15:04 | <ljharb> | or are you looking at an outdated snapshot |
| 15:05 | <devsnek> | tc39.es/ecma262 https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/0wgqBxhO/Screenshot_20200628-100449.jpg |
| 15:05 | <ljharb> | hmm, i am not sure why i saw the wrong step number the last 2 times i looked |
| 15:05 | <jmdyck> | step 8 in indexOf, step 9 in lastIndexOf |
| 15:06 | <jmdyck> | (step 10 in includes) |
| 15:06 | <ljharb> | ah i must have jumped to lastIndexOf and not realized it |
| 15:06 | <ljharb> | devsnek: same reply tho; i want more explicit steps pulled out of the last one, not less |
| 15:06 | <devsnek> | searchLen isn't used anywhere |
| 15:06 | <devsnek> | I'm not sure what that means |
| 15:07 | <ljharb> | ohh hmm |
| 15:07 | <ljharb> | lol maybe i was looking at an outdated snapshot. One sec. |
| 15:08 | <ljharb> | ok yes, that step in both indexOf and includes need to be removed |
| 15:08 | <ljharb> | good catch |
| 15:08 | <devsnek> | my eslint caught it :D |
| 15:09 | <jmdyck> | (my static analysis doesn't detect unused metavars yet) |
| 15:09 | <devsnek> | construct a CFG |
| 15:09 | <devsnek> | convert to SSA |
| 15:09 | <devsnek> | DCE |
| 15:09 | <jmdyck> | TLA overflow |
| 15:11 | <jmdyck> | ljharb: (maybe you missed this from yesterday:) Why is the clause for StringIndexOf in "ECMAScript Language: Source Code" ? It doesn't have anything particularly to do with Source Code. |
| 15:12 | <ljharb> | i don’t think anyone thought much about it, is my guess |
| 15:12 | <ljharb> | if there’s a better place i think it’d be fine to move it there |
| 15:13 | <devsnek> | we should put it back into String#indexOf and have other algorithms invoke String#indexOf steps X-Y |
| 15:16 | <jmdyck> | you forgot the "/s" |
| 15:22 | <jmdyck> | I'll submit a PR to move it (prob today) if no-one else does. |
| 15:23 | <jmdyck> | (Looks like in PR #2009, it was always in clause 10, I just never noticed it before.) |
