July 25, 2012 - TC39 Meeting Notes
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Wed Aug 1 13:07:16 PDT 2012
For non-legacy code, given classes and triangle, I don't see the
override mistake as much of a pain point. For co-existence of the
override mistake with legacy code, the only reasonable choice we've
come up with is
which, as you can see, is painful, slow, and unreliable. But I have to
admit that it seems to work well enough in practice.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
> Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Brendan Eich<brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
>>> This was debated at last week's TC39 meeting. Between the desire to
>>> this symmetry (not paramount, there are many dimensions and symmetries to
>>> consider) and the V8 bug being fixed (and the JSC bug on which the V8 bug
>>> was based already being fixed in iOS6), I believe we kept consensus to
>>> follow the spec.
>> For the record, I continue to think this is a bad idea, and that we
>> should lose the symmetry for gains elsewhere. So I'd say we failed to
>> gain consensus to change the spec. Since consensus is needed to change
>> the spec, the spec is likely to remain unchanged in this regard.
> Fair enough -- sorry I didn't represent this accurately.
> But this reminds me to ask: what do you think of Allen's := proposal as the
> better mustache? I realize it doesn't help the Caja vs. legacy problem.
More information about the es-discuss