I'd be interested to learn why it was decided to redact a possible new name for `global` in the latest meeting notes[1].
Although I do understand that redacting the name minimizes its chance to gain more usage, I doubt that the impact would be significant; if anything, I think people would have trouble to think of this form of standardization as "open". By the same argument, we could in principle redact any new prototype/global property, couldn't we? Is the intent not to cause a second "smooshgate"? What's the point? [1] https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es9/2018-07/ july-24.md#new-name-for-global
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
