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 <caitpotte...@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 <k...@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.bal...@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 <gardnerjo...@gmail.com > <mailto:gardnerjo...@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 <erig...@google.com <mailto: > erig...@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 <gardnerjo...@gmail.com > <mailto:gardnerjo...@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@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org> > >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss < > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Cheers, > >>> --MarkM > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> es-discuss mailing list > >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org> > >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss < > 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
