I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage. Vendors aren't keen on any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically impossible.
It's not just the incompatibility either. You also introduce an inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers. When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical to change the language this way for such a small benefit. On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru....@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I understood it. > It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually. > If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea? > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
