[Refactor]: Always use % for getting intrinsics

[ExE-Boss]

No description provided.

[ljharb]

What's the benefit here? If everything in this package uses % bookends, then there's nothing testing "not using %".

[ExE-Boss]

There is in the test files.

[ljharb]

True. What's the benefit of this change tho?

[ExE-Boss]

The benefit is consistency and making it possible to deprecate the non‑% form.

[ljharb]

I'm not sure why we'd want to deprecate it? callBound is the newest helper, and I intentionally left off the % for it.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #100 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #100      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.03%   91.01%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         647      647              
  Lines        8931     9031     +100     
  Branches     2109     2150      +41     
==========================================
+ Hits         8130     8220      +90     
- Misses        801      811      +10     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
2018/IsStringPrefix.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
2019/IsStringPrefix.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
2015/AdvanceStringIndex.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
2015/CreateHTML.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
2015/CreateListFromArrayLike.js	96.66% <100.00%> (ø)
2015/GetSubstitution.js	98.41% <100.00%> (ø)
2015/InstanceofOperator.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
2015/Invoke.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
2015/IsArray.js	80.00% <100.00%> (ø)
2015/IsPromise.js	33.33% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 107 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8a9cf6a...945e629. Read the comment docs.

[ljharb]

Depending on the progression of https://github.com/ljharb/proposal-get-intrinsic - in which I'm planning to not require the % - I'll be happy to rebase and land this PR once the proposal advances far enough.