On Oct 27, 2011, at 4:35 AM, David Bruant wrote: > Le 27/10/2011 12:08, Axel Rauschmayer a écrit : >> >> +1. Where the spec is already almost pseudo-code, its readability would >> improve if it was, in fact, pseudo-code. But would an extra interpreter be >> needed or couldn’t one just implement the ES-262 constructs (execution >> contexts etc.) in an existing language (Python, Rust, Scheme, Smalltalk, >> etc.)? > Why choosing a completely different language? Why not ECMAScript 5.1? > It will be one less language to learn as people who read the ES6 spec are > very likely to be familiar with ES5.1. I personnally wouldn't feel > comfortable reading a spec in any of the 4 languages you cited. > Or maybe define the couple of things that can't be fully implemented in ES5.1 > (proxies, private names) and use ES5.1 + these construct to define ES6.
The purpose of this implementation would not be to provide more readable alternative to the ES6 pseudo-code. We already agreed to abandon that idea for a number of reasons. The purpose would be to have a tested version of the algorithms so we can debug them prior to publishing the standard. The resulting interpreter would not be normative. Implementers should read the normative pseudo-code specification. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
