Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Caitlin Potter caitpotter88 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 1 14:17:42 UTC 2016


Honestly, I don’t think so — Colloquially, it’s just easier to deal with small indexes vs dates/years. They’re shorter, they don’t change as often (in theory). It’s a hard habit to break for most people.

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:09 AM, kdex <kdex at kdex.de> wrote:
> 
> @caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given to match the naming scheme of [1] and [2].
> Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.
> 
> @leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".
> 
> [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6/
> [2] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7
> [3] https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888
> 
> On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:01:18 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
>> Oh sure you have,
>> 
>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ <https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/> for instance :p
>> 
>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 ES7.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner <gardnerjohng at gmail.com <mailto:gardnerjohng at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition <https://esdiscuss.org/topic/constructing-objects-from-named-identifiers> 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 <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>>    Cheers,
>>>    --MarkM
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160601/7a964c8a/attachment.sig>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list