Reviews for Stage 2.7

[guybedford]

Issue to track Stage 2 reviewers feedback.

Spec: https://tc39.es/proposal-esm-phase-imports/

Reviewers:

• @nicolo-ribaudo
• @legendecas

Editors:

• @bakkot
• @syg
• @michaelficarra

[ljharb]

to clarify, reviewers are within stage 2, they're just a prerequisite for stage 2.7.

[michaelficarra]

1. EvaluateImportCall step 9.b.i: don't say "is not equal to", just say "is not"; see https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/wiki/Editorial-Conventions#comparisons.
2. GetModuleSourceModuleRecord: wouldn't it be more appropriate to name this parameter specifier? Isn't it still conceptually a specifier?
3. GetModuleSourceModuleRecord step 5: "is equal to" -> "is"
4. Source Text Module Records [[SourceText]] field: "ECMAScript source text" is probably a better type. Also I wouldn't include the optimisation note for hosts.
5. Source Text Module Records [[ModuleSource]] field: like the above rows, we should describe when it's expected to be empty
6. ModuleSourcesEqual step 2: "is equal to" -> "is"
7. The ModuleSource constructor: I don't think this is needed: "will throw an error when invoked, where support for dynamic construction may be added in future"
8. Where is ModuleSourcesEqual called? Why is it on abstract module records and not just source text module records (or better yet, just an AO) if we know it'll only be called on them?
9. "For Module Records that implement a normal completion" -> "For Module Records that return a normal completion"
10. I don't love the not-a-source enum name, but we can bikeshed that during integration

[michaelficarra]

LGTM