Can we call it ECMAScript 6, yet?

[Brendan Eich]

On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

> I'd recommend sticking sticking with "ES.next" as much as possible.  Everything is still subject to change and there remains a lot of opportunity for creating confusion by talking about what is "in" ES6.

ES.next started to grate, for several subjective reasons and one more objective one: that we (TC39) will not add a version number in between if we can help it.

You're right that the safer course is ES.next until we're further along. When is "further along" in your view?

/be


> 
> Allen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> 
>> It appears that ES6 is ok: http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/capitol-js
>> 
>> 
>> Rick
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:
>> Or is ECMAScript.next still the better term?
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
>> 
>> axel at rauschma.de
>> twitter.com/rauschma
>> 
>> home: rauschma.de
>> blog: 2ality.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110919/a312cadc/attachment.html>