On 3 Aug 2012, at 20:34, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 03/08/2012 12:58, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit : >> substr is in Annex B, which in ES5.1 is an informative annex. In ES6, the >> content of Annex B will be optional normative. Required for web user >> agents, but optional for other hosts. > Ok. Is it planned to extend ES6-test262 scope to include tests for Annex B?
FWIW, String#substr is mentioned in http://mathias.html5.org/specs/javascript/ (as well as in the ES6 draft). I’ve written some tests too: http://mathias.html5.org/tests/javascript/string/ > I'm wondering what's the downside of adding it in the normative part of the > spec. It's in every browser, it's in Node.js, it's likely to be in MongoDB JS > (I haven't tested, but it's based on SpiderMonkey 1.7, and soon V8), likely > in all the mostly used JS platforms (which are often based on > browser-included JS interpreters). > It's likely that platforms that support ES6 without substr will suffer from > interoperability from libraries/modules that use it and rely on it and will > be forced to add substr anyway. This is why it’s been included in Web ECMAScript/JavaScript, FWIW. > I guess I should ask the question: Are there known and used platforms that do > not include substr? If the answer is no, then it probably should get in the > spec for the sake of interoperability. I couldn’t agree more. IMHO, the whole Annex B should be made normative for all engines for interoperability/compatibility reasons. “Support Existing Content” is one of the [HTML] Design Principles (http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#support-existing-content), and it would make sense to apply it to ECMAScript as well. Just my €0.02. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
