Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

John Gardner gardnerjohng at gmail.com
Wed Jun 1 14:23:19 UTC 2016


Caitlin's got it. Furthermore, with the constant exposure of semver, it's a
challenge to condition oneself to think in years instead of version numbers
for one technology but not another.

Which is to say nothing of how well "ECMAScript Twenty Sixteen" rolls off
the tongue in speech.

(I really regret adding the second half of my original e-mail, now... even
if it was supposed to be moderately light-hearted).

*"I haven't been this confused by so many skipped releases since the Xbox
360"*


[image: Inline images 1]



On 2 June 2016 at 00:17, Caitlin Potter <caitpotter88 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160602/5219a07a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 35c1acda-f11c-11e5-94bf-f4b3ec9ab7c1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 46358 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160602/5219a07a/attachment-0001.jpg>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list