Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

John Gardner
I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 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
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Mark S. Miller-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 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
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss




--
    Cheers,
    --MarkM

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

John Gardner
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 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
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss




--
    Cheers,
    --MarkM


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Leo Balter
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 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
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss




--
    Cheers,
    --MarkM


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Caitlin Potter
Oh sure you have,


On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 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
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss




--
    Cheers,
    --MarkM


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Andreas Rossberg-4
Can't wait til we've reached ES15 in 2024!

On 1 June 2016 at 16:01, Caitlin Potter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Oh sure you have,


On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 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
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss




--
    Cheers,
    --MarkM


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

kdex
In reply to this post by Caitlin Potter
@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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
> > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >     Cheers,
> >     --MarkM
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

John Gardner
In reply to this post by Leo Balter

"In anyway, this is an addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that."

I'm not fussed over when it gets considered for addition. Unless there's a period of freeze where proposals are ignored if they're submitted too close to the date of a finalised version of ECMAScript.

On 1 Jun 2016 11:59 pm, "Leo Balter" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 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
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss




--
    Cheers,
    --MarkM


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Caitlin Potter
In reply to this post by kdex
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>    Cheers,
>>>    --MarkM
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

John Gardner
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"

Inline images 1



On 2 June 2016 at 00:17, Caitlin Potter <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>    Cheers,
>>>    --MarkM
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

kdex
In reply to this post by Caitlin Potter
I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated ES standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change just as often as the years on a calendar. :p
The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony", so it's not like we haven't been there before.

I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset of `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.
(Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names will clash :p)

On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:17:42 CEST Caitlin Potter 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
> >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>    Cheers,
> >>>    --MarkM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>
> >>
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

John Gardner
Wrong comparison. "Harmony" was more or less an umbrella term for any version of ECMAScript released after the non-existent version 4, which I'm sure remains a subject of cryptozoology in some circles.

I think it's just a matter of time for people to realise that an offset of `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.

Uhm. I think your manner of recollecting releases is very different to mine...

If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names will clash

In 4024, there'll only be one programming language, which is JavaScript. Everything else, including C, will be redundant. The HTML specification will have been renamed "Bootstrap", and people who write CSS will face the same opprobrium reserved for people who only write in Assembly. Grunt and Gulp will have finally been merged into Grulpt, and Node will have blossomed into an operating system.

The future is bleak and I'll be glad to be dead.

On 2 June 2016 at 00:47, kdex <[hidden email]> wrote:
I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated ES standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change just as often as the years on a calendar. :p
The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony", so it's not like we haven't been there before.

I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset of `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.
(Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names will clash :p)

On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:17:42 CEST Caitlin Potter 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
> >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>    Cheers,
> >>>    --MarkM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>
> >>
>
>


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Caitlin Potter
In reply to this post by kdex
Anyways, instead of arguing about the colloquial vs long/tedious naming conventions, it might be be better not to derail the thread about a language feature proposal.

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:47 AM, kdex <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated ES standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change just as often as the years on a calendar. :p
> The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony", so it's not like we haven't been there before.
>
> I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset of `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.
> (Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names will clash :p)
>
> On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:17:42 CEST Caitlin Potter 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>   Cheers,
>>>>>   --MarkM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

John Gardner
It is? I was counting how many JavaScript versions it'd take before Domino Cola shot this thread down.

SERIOUSLY THOUGH: If somebody could give me a definitive answer on where and how to go about getting a language feature proposed and considered, that'd be copacetic as hell.

On 2 June 2016 at 01:02, Caitlin Potter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Anyways, instead of arguing about the colloquial vs long/tedious naming conventions, it might be be better not to derail the thread about a language feature proposal.

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:47 AM, kdex <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated ES standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change just as often as the years on a calendar. :p
> The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony", so it's not like we haven't been there before.
>
> I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset of `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.
> (Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names will clash :p)
>
> On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:17:42 CEST Caitlin Potter 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>   Cheers,
>>>>>   --MarkM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Renki Ivanko
In reply to this post by Mark S. Miller-2
It's wishful thinking to say that ES7 isn't in common use; there's not much reason for it to be less common than ES6. ES2016 still has the same problems as ES2015: 6 characters means it barely counts as an abbreviation; bigger numbers are not good for humans; the last digit being off by one from the edition number is naturally confusing, and there isn't even a particularly good reason for the new name to exist, because it just communicates the release schedule. The previously established nomenclature also isn't going away because ES3 and ES5 are still officially called that. ES2016 will keep being referred to as "ES2016 (ES7)", because that's the easiest way to explain how it fits into the release history, and it'll stay reminder of the hubris of a technical committee dabbling in marketing.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Mark S. Miller <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 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
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss




--
    Cheers,
    --MarkM

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

Benjamin Gruenbaum
In reply to this post by John Gardner
First of all - when you engage the list in that manner do not expect super constructive responses. Be concise and direct about what you want to get at and you'll get a response.

Disrespect members - and people will not be so willing to engage.

As for language feature proposal - the process is outlined in https://github.com/tc39/ecma262 which explains the process, how proposals are written and how they progress. Also note the "Contributing to ECMAScript" page.


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss