Jordan Harband ljharb at gmail.com
Fri Aug 10 18:29:49 UTC 2018

The rationale is in the notes themselves.

Yes, we could do so in principle, but it's rarely useful to do so.

If the impact is insignificant, then we made nothing worse, just delayed
some information spreading for a few weeks/months. If the impact is
significant, then this has a positive effect.

I'm not seeing the downside.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:27 AM, kdex <kdex at kdex.de> wrote:

> I'd be interested to learn why it was decided to redact a possible new
> name
> for `global` in the latest meeting notes[1].
> Although I do understand that redacting the name minimizes its chance to
> gain
> more usage, I doubt that the impact would be significant; if anything, I
> think
> people would have trouble to think of this form of standardization as
> "open".
> By the same argument, we could in principle redact any new
> prototype/global
> property, couldn't we? Is the intent not to cause a second "smooshgate"?
> What's the point?
> [1] https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es9/2018-07/
> july-24.md#new-name-for-global
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180810/748e1d07/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list