On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > I'd recommend sticking sticking with "ES.next" as much as possible. > Everything is still subject to change and there remains a lot of opportunity > for creating confusion by talking about what is "in" ES6.
ES.next started to grate, for several subjective reasons and one more objective one: that we (TC39) will not add a version number in between if we can help it. You're right that the safer course is ES.next until we're further along. When is "further along" in your view? /be > > Allen > > > > > > On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > >> It appears that ES6 is ok: http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/capitol-js >> >> >> Rick >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <a...@rauschma.de> wrote: >> Or is ECMAScript.next still the better term? >> >> -- >> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer >> >> a...@rauschma.de >> twitter.com/rauschma >> >> home: rauschma.de >> blog: 2ality.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
