Ranges

Andy Earnshaw 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>
wrote:

> 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
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20161214/c128f6a3/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list