[whatwg/webidl] CreateBuiltinFunction’s signature has changed (Issue #1106)

ECMA-262 [changed the signature](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2116) of the [CreateBuiltinFunction](https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-createbuiltinfunction) last year. Perhaps there were changes on both sides around the same time or something, though, since the PR says it “preserves compatibility for WebIDL,” but it seems all 30 usages in Web IDL are incorrect now.

```
PREVIOUS SIGNATURE: ( steps, internalSlotsList [ , realm [ , prototype ] ] )
CURRENT SIGNATURE:  ( behaviour, length, name, additionalInternalSlotsList [ , realm [ , prototype [ , prefix ] ] ] )
```

Web IDL usages all look like one of these:

```
CreateBuiltinFunction(steps, « [[Unforgeables]] », realm, constructorProto).
CreateBuiltinFunction(steps, « », realm)
CreateBuiltinFunction(steps, « »)
```

Explicit names and lengths are required. In cases where Web IDL is already setting them afterwards, it’d just become a single call:

```
// ...where it’s currently like this:
Let F be ! CreateBuiltinFunction(steps, « », realm).
Perform ! SetFunctionName(F, id).
Perform ! SetFunctionLength(F, 0).

// ...it should be like this:
Let F be ! CreateBuiltinFunction(steps, 0, id, « », realm).
```

Web IDL doesn’t always set a name or length, though. I’m not certain what’s right for those cases, but it looks like they’re all Promise-related and mirror patterns in ECMA-262. Since the ES versions already use the new signature, it’s likely their values (e.g. empty string for name) are what’s wanted here, too.

- [Let onFulfilled be ! {...web idl ...}](https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#dfn-perform-steps-once-promise-is-settled) (at step 4)
- [Let onFulfilled be ! {...es...}](https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-asyncfromsynciteratorcontinuation) (at step 8)




-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/issues/1106

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/webidl/issues/1106@github.com>