Herman Venter wrote: > I appreciate that this proposal does not try to go all the way on octal. I am > not so sure this is a good thing or that it makes the proposal more likely to > succeed.
I wouldn't be opposed to removing octal entirely from the spec, but bearing in mind the section 16 wording on syntactic extensions, even that would not prevent implementors from conformantly supporting it. > For the record, I'm personally all for the proposed change, would also like > to all other forms of octal go away and most of all would like to have a > standard that defines just one language, not a powerset. > > But even if the standard does change, I'm not going to bet on the > implementations following suit any time soon. I'm not so sure that having a > standard that is ignored is a good thing either. > > If the change in the standard is agreed to by the representatives of the > implementers, they should first be sure that the change will in fact be made > in their implementations (and sooner rather than later, as in their next > release). If there is a thorough test suite for specification changes in ES3.1: <http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/449>, then I would expect there to be considerable pressure from developers for implementations to pass that test suite, as there has been in similar cases such as the ACID tests. (Of course, a test suite cannot guarantee conformance, but it can test whether implementors have tried to address spec changes and known bugs.) I have submitted a bug for this change to parseInt, with a test case: <http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/449>. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
