Re-expose Intl.NumberFormat.formatToParts#160
Conversation
`Intl.NumberFormat.formatToParts` was first propsed in tc39#30. The spec for it was created in tc39#79 and merged in tc39#100 (with follow-ups). Due to browser implementations not being ready at the time, it was moved back to Stage 3 in tc39#101. The internal refactoring were kept in master and the user-facing method `formatToParts` was removed from the spec in tc39#102. As of August 1st, 2017, `Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts` has shipped in two engines (behind a flag): SpiderMonkey and V8. This PR brings `Intl.NumberFormat.formatToParts` back as Stage 4 proposal. > const usd = Intl.NumberFormat('en', { style: 'currency', currency: 'USD' }); > usd.format(123456.789) '$123,456.79' > usd.formatToParts(123456.789) [ { type: 'currency', value: '$' }, { type: 'integer', value: '123' }, { type: 'group', value: ',' }, { type: 'integer', value: '456' }, { type: 'decimal', value: '.' }, { type: 'fraction', value: '79' } ] > const pc = Intl.NumberFormat('en', { style: 'percent', minimumFractionDigits: 2 }) > pc.format(-0.123456) '-12.35%' > pc.formatToParts(-0.123456) [ { type: 'minusSign', value: '-' }, { type: 'integer', value: '12' }, { type: 'decimal', value: '.' }, { type: 'fraction', value: '35' }, { type: 'literal', value: '%' } ]
stasm
force-pushed
the
NumberFormat.formatToParts-Stage4
branch
from
3b9a399 to
58eaae9
Compare
|
@caridy - can you review this? This PR looks good to me :) |
spec/numberformat.html
Outdated
| </emu-clause> | ||
|
|
||
| <emu-clause id="sec-intl.numberformat.prototype.formattoparts"> | ||
| <h1>Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts ( [ _value_ ] )</h1> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in the DateTimeFormat.prototype.formatToParts we decided to make the argument non-optional. https://tc39.github.io/ecma402/#sec-Intl.DateTimeFormat.prototype.formatToParts, this should do the same. /cc @littledan
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. Should there be an explicit check for the existence of the argument, too?
|
@zbraniecki @stasm can you guys coordinate the tests needed for this? Let's aim for the next meeting to get this to stage 4, by that time, we need to get test262 to include this one. |
|
The test have been coordinated back in August :) https://github.com/tc39/test262/tree/master/test/intl402/NumberFormat/prototype/formatToParts |
|
Yeah, I think this should be good to land as soon as it gets officially to Stage 4. LGTM at that point. @domenic has suggested in the past allowing things to reach Stage 4 outside of actual meetings, based on meeting all the requirements and discussion online. However, we didn't reach agreement on doing this. |
|
This has reached Stage 4 today. I believe we can merge it now :) |
As per tc39/ecma402#160 the formatToParts.length is set to 1.
| <emu-alg> | ||
| 1. Let _nf_ be *this* value. | ||
| 1. If Type(_nf_) is not Object, throw a *TypeError* exception. | ||
| 1. If _nf_ does not have an [[initializedNumberFormat]] internal slot, throw a *TypeError* exception. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
one minor editorial detail, initializedNumberFormat => InitializedNumberFormat now that internal slots are camel case. I can probably take care of that directly.
…1249) As per tc39/ecma402#160 the formatToParts.length is set to 1.
|
Yay! |
4 participants
Intl.NumberFormat.formatToPartswas first propsed in #30. The spec for it was created in #79 and merged in #100 (with follow-ups). Due to browser implementations not being ready at the time, it was moved back to Stage 3 in #101. The internal refactoring were kept in master and the user-facing methodformatToPartswas removed from the spec in #102.As of August 1st, 2017,
Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToPartshas shipped in two engines (behind a flag): SpiderMonkey and V8. This PR bringsIntl.NumberFormat.formatToPartsback as Stage 4 proposal.