On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 1:34 AM, Mathias Bynens wrote: > > > Allen mentioned that `String#at` might not make it to ES6 because nobody > in TC39 is championing it. I've now asked Rick if he would be the champion > for this, and he agreed. (Thanks again!) > > > > Looking over the 'TC39 progress' document at < > https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/document/d/1QbEE0BsO4lvl7NFTn5WXWeiEIBfaVUF7Dk0hpPpPDzU>, > it seems most of the work is already taken care of: the use case was > discussed in this thread, the proposal has a complete spec text, and > there's an example implementation/polyfill with unit tests. See < > http://mths.be/at>. > > > > Is there anything else I can do to help get this included as a > non-TC39-member? > > > > But just to be even clear, the new feature gate for ES6 is officially > closed. > It's a really high bar to get over that closed gate. Unless the exclusion > of a feature was a mistake, fixes a bug, or is somehow essentially to > supporting something that is already in ES6 I don't think we should be > talking about adding it to ES6. > > I don't think String.prototype.at fits any of those criteria. We've > talked about it several times, including in the context of Norbert's > original ES6 full unicode support proposal, and never achieved consensus on > including it. Personally, I think it should be there but it's time to > start talking about it for ES7 not ES6. > Yes, I absolutely agree, apologies as I realize that was not addressed in my previous message. Rick > Allen > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss