brendan at mozilla.org
Sat May 17 20:54:06 PDT 2008
On May 17, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> it occurred to me that it's not yet too late to end the madness. How
> Ecmascript equivalents:
There's only some small amount of madness (or irritation, really) in
either course. No one is seriously confused by JS2 being a successor
to JS1.x, but some would find the jump over missing 2.x and 3.0 odd
(see below on more problems for a JS3.1). The current plan leaves
those preferring ES to JS with the chore of doubling or halving, but
really: if you prefer ES just use it and don't bother with JS numbers.
The versioning proposal is not trying to rewrite history or over-
engineer version lines, just avoid any "JS2 > ES4" doubt (which was a
certainty in the original vision, see Waldemar's docs sent to es4-
discuss last month).
> This also addresses the otherwise nasty issue of what the
> 3.1 as well.
No, we want a number line that goes up sensibly. JS3.1 if it follows
1.7 would have everything on board for ES3.1 + other stuff not in ES3
that prefigures ES4.
More information about the Es4-discuss