Editorial: rename genContext to calleeContext in RunCallerContext

[Leonabcd123]

The running execution context in RunCallerContext (step 1) is named genContext, even though RunCallerContext is also called from Await, so the context can also be just a normal async function rather than a generator, which makes the current name a bit confusing in my opinion. This pr renames it to calleeContext.

[nicolo-ribaudo]

_innerContext_? As we have two contexts, it's good to have both of them qualified.

[Leonabcd123]

_innerContext_? As we have two contexts, it's good to have both of them qualified.

Thinking a bit more about the name, I think _calleeContext_ might be better? _innerContext_ isn't used anywhere else in the spec, and the operation is called RunCallerContext, so it makes sense that the context that runs it is the callee.

[jmdyck]

Agreed that _innerContext_ is not appropriate, since AFAICT 'inner'/'outer' isn't terminology that we use for execution contexts anywhere in the spec.

_calleeContext_ would be the natural complement to the AO's _callerContext_ alias. There two drawbacks I can think of:

• They differ by only one character, which is not great for distinguishing them.
• The naming for RunSuspendedContext and RunCallerContext might change. See e.g. this and this in Editorial: Factor out AO RunSuspendedContext() #2664.

We should maybe settle that naming question first.

[Leonabcd123]

• The naming for RunSuspendedContext and RunCallerContext might change. See e.g. this and this in Editorial: Factor out AO RunSuspendedContext() #2664.

I get why RunSuspendedContext would need to be renamed after removing the concept of suspending an execution context, but I'm not sure why RunCallerContext needs a different name. I think that renaming RunSuspendedContext to RunCalleeContext and keeping RunCallerContext would make the most sense. Could you clarify why you said here that the caller/callee distinction might be misleading?

For now I changed it to calleeContext.

[jmdyck]

I think that renaming RunSuspendedContext to RunCalleeContext and keeping RunCallerContext would make the most sense.

That's a possibility.

Could you clarify why you said here that the caller/callee distinction might be misleading?

The caller/callee distinction normally arises with functions: function A calls function B, so A is the caller and B is the callee. But a transfer of control (in the sense of #2962) is not a function call, so it might be misleading to use the caller/callee terminology. (On the other hand, we might not find anything better.)

[michaelficarra]

Given #2962 rephrases these steps to use the phrasing "transfer control", I agree that caller/callee is not appropriate. I think we should choose names that work well with that phrasing.