On Oct 2, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> At this point I'd go with "Object" (IOW, _stet_), unless Allen has a thought.
I agree.
Regarding 3, if it is easy spec-wide to make the prototype non-instances that
would be preferable, but as long as the per instance state in the prototype is
immutable I think it would be ok leaving it as currently specified.
Allen
>
> /be
>
> Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
>> TC 39, I need decisions so that I can finish the Internationalization spec
>> and send it to the Ecma GA:
>>
>> 1) Instances of Intl.Collator, Intl.NumberFormat, and Intl.DateTimeFormat
>> currently have [[Class]] "Object". Should this change to "Collator",
>> "NumberFormat", and "DateTimeFormat", respectively?
>>
>> 2) If the answer to 1) is "yes": The prototype objects of Intl.Collator,
>> Intl.NumberFormat, and Intl.DateTimeFormat currently have [[Class]]
>> "Object". Should this change to "Collator", "NumberFormat", and
>> "DateTimeFormat", respectively?
>>
>> 3) If the answer to 1) or 2) is "no": The prototype objects of
>> Intl.Collator, Intl.NumberFormat, and Intl.DateTimeFormat currently have all
>> the state that allows them to be used as instances. Should they not have
>> that state, and instead be plain objects with methods?
>>
>> If I don't get votes from at least 10 of the usual TC 39 attendees within
>> the next 24 hours, and a clear majority for change, the spec will remain as
>> approved at the meeting two weeks ago.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2012, at 23:08 , Brendan Eich wrote:
>>
>>> Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
>>>> Last week TC 39 approved a standard defining three new built-in
>>>> constructors whose instances and prototype objects all have [[Class]]
>>>> "Object". Also, the prototype objects are not constructed by their
>>>> respective constructors, but initialized by them, e.g., as
>>>> Intl.Collator.call({}).
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting they should have "Collator", "NumberFormat", and
>>>> "DateTimeFormat", respectively, and the prototypes be specified as being
>>>> constructed by their constructors?
>>> All else equal, yes (sorry for not flagging these).
>>>
>>> Any non-equal elses in sight?
>>>
>>> /be
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
