On May 17, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > it occurred to me that it's not yet too late to end the madness. How > about if we align the next JavaScript version numbers with their > Ecmascript equivalents: > > How about if the JavaScript version corresponding to ES4 is JavaScript > 4?
There's only some small amount of madness (or irritation, really) in either course. No one is seriously confused by JS2 being a successor to JS1.x, but some would find the jump over missing 2.x and 3.0 odd (see below on more problems for a JS3.1). The current plan leaves those preferring ES to JS with the chore of doubling or halving, but really: if you prefer ES just use it and don't bother with JS numbers. The versioning proposal is not trying to rewrite history or over- engineer version lines, just avoid any "JS2 > ES4" doubt (which was a certainty in the original vision, see Waldemar's docs sent to es4- discuss last month). > This also addresses the otherwise nasty issue of what the > JavaScript numbering should be for ES3.1. Let's call that JavaScript > 3.1 as well. No, we want a number line that goes up sensibly. JS3.1 if it follows 1.7 would have everything on board for ES3.1 + other stuff not in ES3 that prefigures ES4. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
