On 10/28/07, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > * Temper tantrums about the name. > > (there's really nothing to negotiate, aiui) > > I don't understand your point. Both positions: > * advocating that the name stay the same > * advocating that the name be changed > cannot be resolved by technical arguments. The issue isn't technical. > When you say "there's really nothing to negotiate", I'm not sure what > you mean. Are you suggesting that we avoid deciding the name for the > new language, and confine ourselves instead to deciding only its > technical content?
Yes, but it's also not a good way to participate in any standards group. Here's the web page: http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC39-TG1.htm Bullet points #1 and #2 pretty clearly state that the product is ECMAScript. I'm not an expert on the ECMA process, but I don't think some dissent concerning new features should require revisiting the name of the standard produced. Check out the attendees and minutes for July 27, *2006* on this page: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=meetings:meetings And let's be clear, this example works in ES4: ~/Desktop/es4> ./es4 >> function X() { this.foo = "bar"} >> X.prototype = {"baz":"qux"} [object Object] >> function Y() { this.bop = "wibble" } >> Y.prototype = new X() [object Object] >> var z = new Y() >> z.bop wibble >> z.foo bar >> z.baz qux No static typing, no classes. The ES4 additions are closer to Bigloo Scheme or something like that [1,2]. There if you need them, harmless if you don't. > In any case, I agree that we can at least postpone > these non-technical issues for now. Yep, works for me. 1.) http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom/www/bigloo/manual/bigloo-15.html 2.) http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom/www/bigloo/manual/bigloo-7.html#container1654 -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
