Follow-up thought: people still link to the (completely outdated) proposals on the wiki, because they are often very readable. Is it conceivable to better maintain proposals for ES2016+ ? Or would that be too much work for the champions?
> On 02 Feb 2015, at 19:50 , Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 22 Jan 2015, at 10:29 , Brendan Eich <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> ECMA-357 (E4X) pioneered informative-first prose sections, not found in >> ECMA-262 Ed. 3, and as a direct consequence, had too many imprecise or even >> inaccurate informative notes, which (turns out) were misread as normative, >> or simply otherwise caused confusion. > > > OTOH, I find rationales and complete terminology very important for talking > about and understanding the spec (but I do know that that would incur even > more work). At the moment, reading the spec feels like figuring out > undocumented source code; rationales have to be deduced by going though the > TC39 meeting notes and the es-discuss archives (or, in the case of proxies, > Tom’s papers). A companion book to ECMA-262 may be the ideal solution, but > the problem is that the audience/market for such a book is small. And Allen’s > plate must be full enough as it is. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] rauschma.de
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
