First crack at a Streams proposal
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 17:25:15 PDT 2013
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>wrote:
> > Also, JS has been kept general purpose enough, I would not try to
> > the language too much after DOM and W3C APIs and I thought this was also
> > same idea of TC39.
> I don't understand this sentence. It *sounds* like you're trying to
> say that Streams aren't general-purpose enough for JS to standardize,
> and should be left to DOM/W3C to do. Is this correct?
I was rather thinking that if this proposal is for a general purpose, then
the following should not be the case :-)
I designed it explicitly for DOM use-cases that I ran into
I see that this is going in the right direction though, more real-life
cases for non DOM only things in the pot.
me like that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss