andyearnshaw at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 08:29:46 UTC 2016
I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage. Vendors aren't keen on
any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this
to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically impossible.
It's not just the incompatibility either. You also introduce an
inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same
as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers.
When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical to
change the language this way for such a small benefit.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com>
> Oh, I understood it.
> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
> If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea?
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss