TODO

TODO.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# TODO
+
+* Tests
+* Test for `"use strict"` directive in function not being moved up to outside `with ()`
+* Test for multiple `with ()`s between var and its binding
+* Test for `with ()` with no `{}` statement block
+* Tests for `with` in `eval()`
+* Tests for `this` where implicitly used by `super()` and `super`
+* Test for `with` nested in `with` value:
+  `with ( (() => { const o = {x: 123}; with ({}) return o; })() ) x;`
+
+* Raise Github issue for getting `eval`:
+
+```js
+with ({eval: 123}) {
+  return () => eval;
+}
+```
+
+Instrumentation replaces `eval` with `livepack_tracker.evalIndirect`, and therefore avoids
+getting `eval` from the `with ()` object.
+
+* Raise Github issue for interaction with const violations
+
+e.g. How to deal with this? Whether `x = 2` is a const violation depends on whether `obj` has a property called `x` or not.
+
+```js
+const x = 1;
+with (obj) {
+  module.exports = () => { x = 2; };
+}
+```
+
+Could output a 2nd `with ()` which catches const violations:
+
+```js
+x => with$0 => {
+  with ({get x() { return x; }, set x(v) { const x = 0; x = 0; }}) with (with$0) return () => { x = 2; };
+}
+```
+
+Or for a silent const, a setter which does nothing:
+
+```js
+x => with$0 => {
+  with ({get x() { return x; }, set x(v) {}}) with (with$0) return () => { x = 2; };
+}
+```
+
+The latter wouldn't work if assignment is in strict mode function and so should throw. e.g.:
+
+```js
+function x() {
+  with (obj) {
+    return () => {
+      'use strict';
+      x = 2;
+    };
+  }
+}
+module.exports = x();
+```
+
+If multiple `with` blocks, would need to put the "protector" `with` outside the last `with`.
+
+This same technique could be used to prevent mutating consts in `eval()`.