Should we allow super [ Expression ] in PatternMatchingMemberExpression?

[JLHwung]

Here is the current PatternMatchingMemberExpression production:

PatternMatchingMemberExpression[Yield, Await] :
  this
  MetaProperty
  IdentifierReference[?Yield, ?Await]
  super . IdentifierName
  PatternMatchingMemberExpression[?Yield, ?Await] . IdentifierName
  PatternMatchingMemberExpression[?Yield, ?Await] . PrivateIdentifier
  PatternMatchingMemberExpression[?Yield, ?Await] [ Expression[+In, ?Yield, ?Await] ]

As we can see, the following examples are valid PatternMatchingMemberExpression:

• this[expr]
• super.prop[expr]
• import.meta[expr]

However, this production does not cover super [ Expression[+In, ?Yield, ?Await] ], should we also include it?
If yes we can replace super . IdentifierName by the SuperProperty production, which already covers super[expr].

[ljharb]

My expectation is that we’d match decorators here.

[Jack-Works]

looks like I forgot that production

[Jack-Works]

My expectation is that we’d match decorators here.

DecoratorMemberExpression is too limited. It doesn't include this MetaProperty or super.*, it also includes (Expression) we don't want.