On Mar 24, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Wes Garland wrote: > On 24 March 2012 17:22, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not 100% clear on this point yet, but e.g. the SourceCharacter production > in Annex A.1 is described as "any Unicode code unit." > > Ugh, IMHO, that's wrong, and should be "any Unicode code point". (let the > flames begin?)
That sounds nice in theory, but we can't change the past. Even with the BRS, there would still be a compatibility mode where it's code points. >> >> The underlying transport format should not be a concern for the JS lexer. > > eval > > > Eval is a red herring: its input is defined as the contents of the given > String. So, we come full-circle back to "what's in a String?". I'm still > partial to Brendan's BRS idea, because at least it fixes everything all at > once. I share Erik and others' concerns about the BRS. Working at the heap level sounds brittle to me. It seems like a lot of spec and implementation complexity, and it doesn't really have a good story for integrating legacy code and future code. I think the direction that Norbert, Erik, and Steven have been going is very promising. Dave
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
