On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < [email protected]> wrote:
> Rick, that big bold thing is what mislead to me ... *This proposal* > I thought was referred to the page, the one showed in that page ... > Would you like me to add some additional text so that it's clearer? > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> yes, I should have checked the specs but that page should be either >>> updated or removed. >>> >> >> No, you should just read the spec and if you find yourself at the page >> you linked to, in big bold letters at the top: >> >> *This proposal has progressed to the Draft ECMAScript 6 Specification, >> which is available for review here: >> specification_drafts<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts>. >> Any new issues relating to them should be filed as bugs at >> http://bugs.ecmascript.org* >> >> >> >>> Anyway you still didn't convince me generators were needed at all there, >>> neither that I can "simply shim iterators" 'cause this makes generators >>> pointless in first place if it was so easy to polyfill ... which is not. >>> >>> The polyfill gonna grow in size for no concrete reason now, can I at >>> least ask if current specs about Maps, Sets, and WeakMaps are final? >>> >> >> Polyfills don't decide the fate of the future. >> >> >> Rick >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
