Editorial: Month code improvements #3144
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Noticed that this didn't use the saved RangeErrorCtor as is should have.
This name matches the spec text.
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3144 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 96.78% 96.82% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 21 22 +1
Lines 10002 9995 -7
Branches 1830 1819 -11
==========================================
- Hits 9680 9678 -2
+ Misses 276 270 -6
- Partials 46 47 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
gibson042
approved these changes
Aug 13, 2025
ptomato
force-pushed
the
month-code-improvements
branch
from
e10f046 to
a03d53b
Compare
These operations are used in the Intl Era Monthcode proposal. They are also already useful in Temporal, so introduce them here. Co-Authored-By: Shane F. Carr <[email protected]>
The polyfill already contained two functions that were doing essentially the same things, so rename them. However they were also doing duplicated work of validation that was already done in ToMonthCode, so eliminate that duplication. This simplifies the calendar code a little bit.
Similar to "calendar type" strings, we introduce "month code" strings which are syntactically valid month codes. Move the description of month code syntax out of the table and into its own clause.
ptomato
force-pushed
the
month-code-improvements
branch
from
a03d53b to
01f92d8
Compare
sffc
reviewed
Aug 13, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like if we go down this path, the month code type in the spec should be the Record, and we have an AO to convert the record to a string. But, I'm okay with this intermediate approach where month code is a valid month code string, but we seem to be inconsistent about it.
Yep, I feel the same way. But I also reached the same conclusion that this is OK as an intermediate approach. |
Co-Authored-By: Richard Gibson <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Richard Gibson <[email protected]>
ptomato
force-pushed
the
month-code-improvements
branch
from
01f92d8 to
8d072d5
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds an official definition of month code (so that it can be used as a parameter type) and a few month code-related operations, following on from discussion in tc39/proposal-intl-era-monthcode#69.