Regarding which flag to put this behind: to my mind, --harmony-arrays seems OK, since "Harmony" just means "experimental" and not "ES6".
I do not mind creating a separate flag if that's what's desired. But we should think about how that will play with our future strategies, as in the post-ES6 process small features like this will be implemented and shipped independently fairly often. Is the plan one flag per feature? One flag per yearly edition, but we move features out of --es7 and into --es-staging/unflagged as they advance through the process? (Remember that nothing can officially be in ES7 until it has advanced to stage 4, which requires two unflagged shipping implementations, so an --es7 flag might be a bit of a misnomer.) On Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:37:13 AM UTC-7, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > Array.prototype.contains is specced at > https://github.com/domenic/Array.prototype.contains, including a > reference implementation and test262-format tests. At the July TC39 > meeting, it was accepted as having advanced to stage 1. I am now hoping to > advance it to stage 2 (and onward), which requires experimental > implementations. > > Mozilla is implementing (patch is being reviewed now) at > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1069063 > > Array.prototype.contains is nominally an "ES7" feature, but has more > agreement on the details than some ES6 features that are still being worked > out. As such I am hoping we can ship it on a short timescale as it advances > through the post-ES6 feature process. The spec's issue tracker > <https://github.com/domenic/Array.prototype.contains/issues> tracks its > progress through the requirements for advancing. Once an experimental > implementation is present in V8 (or SpiderMonkey, if we fall behind them) I > will start gathering the reviews necessary to advance to stage 3. > > I created a V8 issue at https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3575 > and the changeset is being reviewed at > https://codereview.chromium.org/579973002/. > > I submitted the tests to test262 at > https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/95. Working with Brian (the test262 > editor), we anticipate these being merged despite their ES7-ness, as > test262 is more concerned with what is being implemented than with spec > version numbers. > > I am hoping we can avoid our pattern of creating V8-specific tests in > mjsunit form, and instead simply use cross-engine test262 tests as the > canonical test suite. That is, all the coverage should come from test262. > The lazy thing to do here would be to wait for the test262 pull request to > get merged, but ideally we should set up some way of checking in "pending" > test262 tests into the V8 repo while we wait for them to be incorporated > into test262 proper. Mozilla is also investigating that strategy. > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine.internals/VmjEa2ATcNo> > > Also, we are apparently not running the test262 tests by default, which > will need to be fixed. > -- -- v8-dev mailing list v8-dev@googlegroups.com http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to v8-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
