On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:08 PM, openst...@aol.com wrote:
> I think "further along" occurs when we have made final decisions on what is
> "in" and what is "not", because "not" starts to become "ES-Next", What I
> would be afraid of is that "ES-6" is over populated with want-a-be's features
> and s
I think "further along" occurs when we have made final decisions on what is
"in" and what is "not", because "not" starts to become "ES-Next", What I
would be afraid of is that "ES-6" is over populated with want-a-be's
features and starts to get a life of its own (remember our experience with
On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
> You're right that the safer course is ES.next until we're further along. When
> is "further along" in your view?
>
One approach is to not describe a features as "being in ES6" until after it
first appears in an actual ES6 draft. From th
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 s
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.
Allen
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> It appears that ES6 is ok: h
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 wrote:
> Or is ECMAScript.next still the better term?
>
> --
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
>
> a...@rauschma.de
> twitter.com/rauschma
>
> home: rauschma.de
> blog: 2al
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
