Kevin Gibbons

> I don't think you need `IteratorCloseForThrow`. Anywhere that says `Perform IteratorCloseForThrow(...)`, you can just say `Perform IteratorClose(...)` with the same semantics. [By convention](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/253#issuecomment-1050160672) (enforced by ecmarkup) you can't call...

I'm inclined to make an exception for invocations of SDOs which are parameters of AOs or preceded by `?` or `!`.

See also #699 and #755 and the [notes](https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es7/2017-01/jan-24.md#13ib-discussion-of-some-oddities-around-classes-extending-null). To evaluate this, it would be helpful to describe what happens in a variety of cases. For example: - `new class extends...

I expect the reason #10 is not behaving as you expect is because this patch uses `protoParent` instead of `superclass`. See #755.

@devsnek > `If _protoParent_ is *null* and _constructorParent_ is %FunctionPrototype%, let _trueNullParent_ be *true*, otherwise let _trueNullParent_ be *false*.` > ``If |ClassHeritage_opt| is present and _trueNullParent_ is *false*, set _F_.[[ConstructorKind]]...

So, given all the above, let me check if my understanding is correct / try to summarize: Whether a class is considered `"base"` or `"derived"` is fixed at the time...

Great. I think 3 is pretty weird - is there a reason to make the behavior of `super()` in that case "do nothing" rather than "throw a TypeError"? Given the...

"Allowed" is a funny term. Making it legal but throwing is still "allowed" in some sense. I think it's less confusing to have it legal syntactically but forbidden at runtime...

> would it be breaking to remove the early error forbidding super in classes without heritage? No, but it would make me sad.

@bathos "breaking" is always kind of a subtle question. What we generally mean by "breaking" is that websites or applications no longer serve their purpose for users, not that a...