RFR 8074671: Nashorn Parser API

A. Sundararajan sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com
Mon Mar 9 13:23:43 UTC 2015

Thanks for the review. Please review the updated webrev:



* Fixed JSONWriter.java "should not reach here" string.
* Fixed typo in withcheck.js
* moved synthetic flag to Block.java - added a test case to 
test/script/nosecurity/parservisitor.js test
* changed stream().forEach() as forEach() as Remi suggested 


On Monday 09 March 2015 01:57 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
> Amazing work Sundar. I can see this being a very strong point for Nashorn for people writing tools that work with JS source files.
> Two typos:
>     - JSONWriter: assert "should reach here" should read "should not reach here"
>     - withcheck.js: typo: "diganostic"
> I'm also very happy that we have synthetic marker on BlockStatement. That's actually something that we could now use for more precise let/const scoping. I think though that we should add the flag on Block, not on BlockStatement. Block already has a flags bitfield, BTW, but that's not the reason. The reason is that we're historically introducing synthetic blocks elsewhere too. "if(...) stmt;" becomes "if(...) { stmt; }" internally as our AST is structured so that IfNode, ForNode, WhileNode, CaseNode etc. do not hold Statement nodes as their bodies, but Block nodes instead. This is strictly speaking incorrect mapping of the ES grammar, but I guess that for now we're stuck with it.
> Those blocks are synthetic too, and we aren't distinguishing them on the AST level from explicit blocks present in the source code. It isn't much of a trouble for contexts where only a single statement can be specified without a block (which is most contexts in JS) but it can be a trouble for switch/case, as "case x: stmt1; stmt2; case y: ..." and "case x: { stmt1; stmt2; } case y: ..." have differing semantics in ES6 if stmt1 is a let/const. So I think that if we're finally adding a "synthetic" flag (as we should!) to blocks, it should be marked on Block, not BlockStatement.
> Attila.
> On Mar 9, 2015, at 7:02 AM, A. Sundararajan <sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Please review "Nashorn Parser API". Introduces jdk.nashorn.api.tree package to support parser API for Nashorn.
>> JEP: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/236
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074671
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8074671/
>> Simple examples "evalcheck.js" and "withcheck.js" under samples directory added.
>> Thanks to Joe Darcy who helped me with extensive specification review.
>> Thanks,
>> -Sundar

More information about the nashorn-dev mailing list