Process of proposing targeted deconstruction
gardnerjohng at gmail.com
Wed Jun 1 14:17:25 UTC 2016
"In anyway, this is an addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late
I'm not fussed over when it gets considered for addition. Unless there's a
period of freeze where proposals are ignored if they're submitted too close
to the date of a finalised version of ECMAScript.
On 1 Jun 2016 11:59 pm, "Leo Balter" <leonardo.balter at gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't
have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an addition
that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner <gardnerjohng at gmail.com> wrote:
> *> There is no such thing as ES7.*
> You say that as though you can control how people index language versions
> in their minds...
> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
>> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in
>> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner <gardnerjohng at gmail.com>
>>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition
>>> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this
>>> officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places
>>> and I'm unsure.
>>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
>>> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
>>> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
>>> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss