Re: New Set.prototype methods

2016-06-01 Thread Michał Wadas 
First of all "generic iterator methods" are discussed in this proposal.
Second of all, presence of them isn't incompatible with new methods on Set
instances (discussed in document too).
Third of all, generic iterator methods aren't even proposed, and it's over
two years since I have heard about this idea for first time.
On 2 Jun 2016 12:21 a.m., "Alexander Jones"  wrote:

> Most of these would be better off as generic iterable-consuming,
> iterator-producing functions. You know, Single Responsibility Principle,
> and all that.
>
> As for the rest, IMO union, intersect, and the zoo of other missing set
> theory operators would probably be better off as multiple dispatch
> functions, as either operators or unified call syntax... I think I've seen
> proposals for all of those floating around.
>
> On 1 June 2016 at 00:38, Tab Atkins Jr.  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Michał Wadas 
>> wrote:
>> > I have written proposal for new Set.prototype methods.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/Ginden/set-methods
>> >
>> > New methods would be:
>> >
>> > Set.prototype.filter
>> > Set.prototype.map
>> > Set.prototype.some
>> > Set.prototype.every
>> > Set.prototype.find
>> > Set.prototype.union
>> > Set.prototype.intersect
>> > Set.isSet
>> >
>> >
>> > TBA:
>> >
>> > Set.prototype.difference (or .except)
>>
>> Yes *please* to all of these.  I've added most of them manually to
>> Set.prototype on some of my projects.
>>
>> One additional request in a related vein - Set.prototype.chain - like
>> .map, but the callback's value is iterated and added to the result
>> set.  (We need to coordinate this with an identical method on Array;
>> .chain just seems to be one of the more common names for this
>> operation in JS-land.)  I use this a *lot* to, for example, expand
>> items into related terms.
>>
>> ~TJ
>> ___
>> 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

Re: New Set.prototype methods

2016-06-01 Thread Alexander Jones 
Most of these would be better off as generic iterable-consuming,
iterator-producing functions. You know, Single Responsibility Principle,
and all that.

As for the rest, IMO union, intersect, and the zoo of other missing set
theory operators would probably be better off as multiple dispatch
functions, as either operators or unified call syntax... I think I've seen
proposals for all of those floating around.

On 1 June 2016 at 00:38, Tab Atkins Jr.  wrote:

> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Michał Wadas 
> wrote:
> > I have written proposal for new Set.prototype methods.
> >
> > https://github.com/Ginden/set-methods
> >
> > New methods would be:
> >
> > Set.prototype.filter
> > Set.prototype.map
> > Set.prototype.some
> > Set.prototype.every
> > Set.prototype.find
> > Set.prototype.union
> > Set.prototype.intersect
> > Set.isSet
> >
> >
> > TBA:
> >
> > Set.prototype.difference (or .except)
>
> Yes *please* to all of these.  I've added most of them manually to
> Set.prototype on some of my projects.
>
> One additional request in a related vein - Set.prototype.chain - like
> .map, but the callback's value is iterated and added to the result
> set.  (We need to coordinate this with an identical method on Array;
> .chain just seems to be one of the more common names for this
> operation in JS-land.)  I use this a *lot* to, for example, expand
> items into related terms.
>
> ~TJ
> ___
> 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

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread Renki Ivanko 
It's wishful thinking to say that ES7 isn't in common use; there's not much
reason for it to be less common than ES6. ES2016 still has the same
problems as ES2015: 6 characters means it barely counts as an abbreviation;
bigger numbers are not good for humans; the last digit being off by one
from the edition number is naturally confusing, and there isn't even a
particularly good reason for the new name to exist, because it just
communicates the release schedule. The previously established nomenclature
also isn't going away because ES3 and ES5 are still officially called that.
ES2016 will keep being referred to as "ES2016 (ES7)", because that's the
easiest way to explain how it fits into the release history, and it'll stay
reminder of the hubris of a technical committee dabbling in marketing.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Mark S. Miller  wrote:

> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in
> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as
> ES7.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner 
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition
>> 
>> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this
>> officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places
>> and I'm unsure.
>>
>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
>> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
>> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
>> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
>>
>> ___
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> --MarkM
>
> ___
> 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

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread John Gardner 
It is? I was counting how many JavaScript versions it'd take before Domino
Cola  shot this thread down.

*SERIOUSLY THOUGH:* If somebody could give me a definitive answer on where
and how to go about getting a language feature proposed and considered,
that'd be copacetic as hell.

On 2 June 2016 at 01:02, Caitlin Potter  wrote:

> Anyways, instead of arguing about the colloquial vs long/tedious naming
> conventions, it might be be better not to derail the thread about a
> language feature proposal.
>
> > On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:47 AM, kdex  wrote:
> >
> > I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated
> ES standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change
> just as often as the years on a calendar. :p
> > The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony",
> so it's not like we haven't been there before.
> >
> > I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset
> of `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.
> > (Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the
> names will clash :p)
> >
> > On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:17:42 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
> >> Honestly, I don’t think so — Colloquially, it’s just easier to deal
> with small indexes vs dates/years. They’re shorter, they don’t change as
> often (in theory). It’s a hard habit to break for most people.
> >>
> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:09 AM, kdex  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> @caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given
> to match the naming scheme of [1] and [2].
> >>> Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.
> >>>
> >>> @leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6/
> >>> [2] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7
> >>> [3] https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888
> >>>
> >>> On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:01:18 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
>  Oh sure you have,
> 
>  https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ <
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/> for
> instance :p
> 
> > On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter 
> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we
> won't have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an
> addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner  > wrote:
> >> There is no such thing as ES7.
> >
> > You say that as though you can control how people index language
> versions in their minds...
> >
> > On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  erig...@google.com>> wrote:
> > ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also
> in common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing
> as ES7.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner  > wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition <
> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/constructing-objects-from-named-identifiers>
> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this officially
> considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places and I'm
> unsure.
> >
> > BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
> >
> > ___
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >   Cheers,
> >   --MarkM
> >
> >
> > ___
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread Caitlin Potter 
Anyways, instead of arguing about the colloquial vs long/tedious naming 
conventions, it might be be better not to derail the thread about a language 
feature proposal.

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:47 AM, kdex  wrote:
> 
> I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated ES 
> standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change just as 
> often as the years on a calendar. :p
> The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony", so 
> it's not like we haven't been there before.
> 
> I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset of 
> `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.
> (Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names 
> will clash :p)
> 
> On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:17:42 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
>> Honestly, I don’t think so — Colloquially, it’s just easier to deal with 
>> small indexes vs dates/years. They’re shorter, they don’t change as often 
>> (in theory). It’s a hard habit to break for most people.
>> 
>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:09 AM, kdex  wrote:
>>> 
>>> @caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given to 
>>> match the naming scheme of [1] and [2].
>>> Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.
>>> 
>>> @leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".
>>> 
>>> [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6/
>>> [2] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7
>>> [3] https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888
>>> 
>>> On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:01:18 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
 Oh sure you have,
 
 https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ 
  for 
 instance :p
 
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter  wrote:
> 
> I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't 
> have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an 
> addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner  > wrote:
>> There is no such thing as ES7.
> 
> You say that as though you can control how people index language versions 
> in their minds...
> 
> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  > wrote:
> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in 
> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing 
> as ES7.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner  > wrote:
> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 
>  
> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this 
> officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places 
> and I'm unsure.
> 
> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming 
> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb 
> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually 
> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
> 
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
>   Cheers,
>   --MarkM
> 
> 
> ___
> 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
 
 
>> 
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread John Gardner 
Wrong comparison. "Harmony" was more or less an umbrella term for any
version of ECMAScript released after the non-existent version 4, which I'm
sure remains a subject of cryptozoology in some circles.

*I think it's just a matter of time for people to realise that an offset of
> `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.*


Uhm. I think your manner of recollecting releases is very different to
mine...

*If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names will clash*


In 4024, there'll only be one programming language, which is JavaScript.
Everything else, including C, will be redundant. The HTML specification
will have been renamed "Bootstrap", and people who write CSS will face the
same opprobrium reserved for people who only write in Assembly. Grunt and
Gulp will have finally been merged into Grulpt, and Node will have
blossomed into an operating system.

The future is bleak and I'll be glad to be dead.

On 2 June 2016 at 00:47, kdex  wrote:

> I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated ES
> standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change just
> as often as the years on a calendar. :p
> The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony", so
> it's not like we haven't been there before.
>
> I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset of
> `year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.
> (Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the
> names will clash :p)
>
> On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:17:42 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
> > Honestly, I don’t think so — Colloquially, it’s just easier to deal with
> small indexes vs dates/years. They’re shorter, they don’t change as often
> (in theory). It’s a hard habit to break for most people.
> >
> > > On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:09 AM, kdex  wrote:
> > >
> > > @caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given
> to match the naming scheme of [1] and [2].
> > > Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.
> > >
> > > @leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".
> > >
> > > [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6/
> > > [2] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7
> > > [3] https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888
> > >
> > > On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:01:18 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
> > >> Oh sure you have,
> > >>
> > >> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ <
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/> for
> instance :p
> > >>
> > >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we
> won't have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an
> addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner  > wrote:
> >  There is no such thing as ES7.
> > >>>
> > >>> You say that as though you can control how people index language
> versions in their minds...
> > >>>
> > >>> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  erig...@google.com>> wrote:
> > >>> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also
> in common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing
> as ES7.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner  > wrote:
> > >>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition <
> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/constructing-objects-from-named-identifiers>
> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this officially
> considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places and I'm
> unsure.
> > >>>
> > >>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
> > >>>
> > >>> ___
> > >>> es-discuss mailing list
> > >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> > >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>Cheers,
> > >>>--MarkM
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ___
> > >>> es-discuss mailing list
> > >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> > >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ___
> > >>> es-discuss mailing list
> > >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> > >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
___
es-di

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread kdex 
I could swear that I've read that one intent was to release an updated ES 
standard yearly, so in theory, even the smaller indexes should change just as 
often as the years on a calendar. :p
The majority should already have broken the habit calling it "harmony", so it's 
not like we haven't been there before.

I think it's just a matter of time for people to realize that an offset of 
`year – 2009` has the potential to be confusing in the long run.
(Maybe worth mentioning: If mankind still exists in the year 4024, the names 
will clash :p)

On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:17:42 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
> Honestly, I don’t think so — Colloquially, it’s just easier to deal with 
> small indexes vs dates/years. They’re shorter, they don’t change as often (in 
> theory). It’s a hard habit to break for most people.
> 
> > On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:09 AM, kdex  wrote:
> > 
> > @caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given to 
> > match the naming scheme of [1] and [2].
> > Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.
> > 
> > @leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".
> > 
> > [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6/
> > [2] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7
> > [3] https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888
> > 
> > On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:01:18 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
> >> Oh sure you have,
> >> 
> >> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ 
> >>  for 
> >> instance :p
> >> 
> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't 
> >>> have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an 
> >>> addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
> >>> 
> >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner  >>> > wrote:
>  There is no such thing as ES7.
> >>> 
> >>> You say that as though you can control how people index language versions 
> >>> in their minds...
> >>> 
> >>> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  >>> > wrote:
> >>> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in 
> >>> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing 
> >>> as ES7.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner  >>> > wrote:
> >>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 
> >>>  
> >>> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this 
> >>> officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places 
> >>> and I'm unsure.
> >>> 
> >>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming 
> >>> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb 
> >>> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually 
> >>> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
> >>> 
> >>> ___
> >>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>>Cheers,
> >>>--MarkM
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> ___
> >>> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread John Gardner 
Caitlin's got it. Furthermore, with the constant exposure of semver, it's a
challenge to condition oneself to think in years instead of version numbers
for one technology but not another.

Which is to say nothing of how well "ECMAScript Twenty Sixteen" rolls off
the tongue in speech.

(I really regret adding the second half of my original e-mail, now... even
if it was supposed to be moderately light-hearted).

*"I haven't been this confused by so many skipped releases since the Xbox
360"*


[image: Inline images 1]



On 2 June 2016 at 00:17, Caitlin Potter  wrote:

> Honestly, I don’t think so — Colloquially, it’s just easier to deal with
> small indexes vs dates/years. They’re shorter, they don’t change as often
> (in theory). It’s a hard habit to break for most people.
>
> > On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:09 AM, kdex  wrote:
> >
> > @caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given to
> match the naming scheme of [1] and [2].
> > Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.
> >
> > @leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".
> >
> > [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6/
> > [2] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7
> > [3] https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888
> >
> > On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:01:18 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
> >> Oh sure you have,
> >>
> >> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ <
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/> for
> instance :p
> >>
> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we
> won't have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an
> addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner  > wrote:
>  There is no such thing as ES7.
> >>>
> >>> You say that as though you can control how people index language
> versions in their minds...
> >>>
> >>> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  erig...@google.com>> wrote:
> >>> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also
> in common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing
> as ES7.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner  > wrote:
> >>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition <
> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/constructing-objects-from-named-identifiers>
> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this officially
> considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places and I'm
> unsure.
> >>>
> >>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>Cheers,
> >>>--MarkM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> 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

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread Andreas Rossberg 
Can't wait til we've reached ES15 in 2024!

On 1 June 2016 at 16:01, Caitlin Potter  wrote:

> Oh sure you have,
>
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ for
> instance :p
>
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter  wrote:
>
> I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't
> have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an addition
> that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner 
> wrote:
>
>> *> There is no such thing as ES7.*
>>
>> You say that as though you can control how people index language versions
>> in their minds...
>>
>> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  wrote:
>>
>>> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in
>>> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as
>>> ES7.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition
 
 for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this
 officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places
 and I'm unsure.

 BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
 convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
 the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
 ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.

 ___
 es-discuss mailing list
 es-discuss@mozilla.org
 https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> --MarkM
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread Caitlin Potter 
Honestly, I don’t think so — Colloquially, it’s just easier to deal with small 
indexes vs dates/years. They’re shorter, they don’t change as often (in 
theory). It’s a hard habit to break for most people.

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:09 AM, kdex  wrote:
> 
> @caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given to 
> match the naming scheme of [1] and [2].
> Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.
> 
> @leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".
> 
> [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6/
> [2] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7
> [3] https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888
> 
> On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:01:18 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
>> Oh sure you have,
>> 
>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ 
>>  for 
>> instance :p
>> 
>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't 
>>> have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an addition 
>>> that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner >> > wrote:
 There is no such thing as ES7.
>>> 
>>> You say that as though you can control how people index language versions 
>>> in their minds...
>>> 
>>> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller >> > wrote:
>>> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in 
>>> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as 
>>> ES7.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner >> > wrote:
>>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 
>>>  
>>> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this officially 
>>> considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places and I'm 
>>> unsure.
>>> 
>>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming 
>>> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb 
>>> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually 
>>> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org 
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>>Cheers,
>>>--MarkM
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
>> 
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread John Gardner 
"In anyway, this is an addition that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late
for that."

I'm not fussed over when it gets considered for addition. Unless there's a
period of freeze where proposals are ignored if they're submitted too close
to the date of a finalised version of ECMAScript.
On 1 Jun 2016 11:59 pm, "Leo Balter"  wrote:

I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't
have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an addition
that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner  wrote:

> *> There is no such thing as ES7.*
>
> You say that as though you can control how people index language versions
> in their minds...
>
> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  wrote:
>
>> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in
>> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as
>> ES7.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition
>>> 
>>> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this
>>> officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places
>>> and I'm unsure.
>>>
>>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
>>> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
>>> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
>>> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> --MarkM
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread kdex 
@caitlin Good find, but this directory name was presumably only given to match 
the naming scheme of [1] and [2].
Somebody should probably do the work and rename them all.

@leo: The Chrome Platform Status page [3] also mentions "ES8".

[1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es6/
[2] https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es7
[3] https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5644533144485888

On Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016 10:01:18 CEST Caitlin Potter wrote:
> Oh sure you have,
> 
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ 
>  for 
> instance :p
> 
> > On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter  wrote:
> > 
> > I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't 
> > have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an addition 
> > that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner  > > wrote:
> > > There is no such thing as ES7.
> > 
> > You say that as though you can control how people index language versions 
> > in their minds...
> > 
> > On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  > > wrote:
> > ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in 
> > common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as 
> > ES7.
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner  > > wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 
> >  
> > for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this officially 
> > considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places and I'm 
> > unsure.
> > 
> > BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming 
> > convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb 
> > the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually 
> > ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
> > 
> > ___
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > --MarkM
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 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
> 
> 
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread Caitlin Potter 
Oh sure you have,

https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/master/test/mjsunit/es8/ 
 for 
instance :p

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Leo Balter  wrote:
> 
> I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't have 
> this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an addition that 
> won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner  > wrote:
> > There is no such thing as ES7.
> 
> You say that as though you can control how people index language versions in 
> their minds...
> 
> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  > wrote:
> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in 
> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as 
> ES7.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner  > wrote:
> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition 
>  for 
> /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this officially 
> considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places and I'm unsure.
> 
> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming convention? 
> I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb the last digit, 
> which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually ES2016, which I get 
> mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
> 
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org 
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> --MarkM
> 
> 
> ___
> 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



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread Leo Balter 
I haven't seen anyone referring to ES2017 as ES8, so I imagine we won't
have this problem anymore in a couple years. In anyway, this is an addition
that won't happen to ES2016, it's too late for that.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Gardner  wrote:

> *> There is no such thing as ES7.*
>
> You say that as though you can control how people index language versions
> in their minds...
>
> On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  wrote:
>
>> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in
>> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as
>> ES7.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition
>>> 
>>> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this
>>> officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places
>>> and I'm unsure.
>>>
>>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
>>> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
>>> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
>>> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> --MarkM
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread Mark S. Miller 
ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in
common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as
ES7.


On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner  wrote:

> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition
> 
> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this
> officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places
> and I'm unsure.
>
> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
>
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
--MarkM
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread John Gardner 
*> There is no such thing as ES7.*

You say that as though you can control how people index language versions
in their minds...

On 1 June 2016 at 23:33, Mark S. Miller  wrote:

> ES2015 was the last version for which the short for ("ES6") was also in
> common use. After that, there is only ES2016 etc. There is no such thing as
> ES7.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, John Gardner 
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition
>> 
>> for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this
>> officially considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places
>> and I'm unsure.
>>
>> BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
>> convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
>> the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
>> ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
>>
>> ___
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> --MarkM
>
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Process of proposing targeted deconstruction

2016-06-01 Thread John Gardner 
I'd like to propose a simple yet potent syntax addition

for /ECMAScript\d+/. What's the most direct approach to get this officially
considered? I've seen differing procedures mentioned in places and I'm
unsure.

BTW, am I the only one getting confused by the year-based naming
convention? I skip over intermediate letters when reading and only absorb
the last digit, which makes me mistake ES2017 as ES7, which is actually
ES2016, which I get mixed up with ES6, which is ES2015.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: String.prototype.padLeft / String.prototype.padRight

2016-06-01 Thread Cyril Auburtin 
Like Alexander, I see no general use case for this, and no point in adding
it. It's more or less simply `('0'.repeat(n)+value).slice(-n)`.

If it was to really add it, there could also be other ways like adding it
to Date API (where it's mostly used) or as a more general String.format
method

2016-06-01 8:29 GMT+02:00 Jordan Harband :

> The time for that kind of change has long past - and the current use cases
> for multi-char fill strings work with the current methods. I'll repeat - "The
> consensus remained the same around treatment of code units - which is that,
> like every other string method, they should conform to the native encoding
> of strings in the language." - in other words, there's no "problem" with
> supplementary characters that needs fixing, at least at the granularity
> level of "specific API methods".
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <
> ecmascr...@lindenbergsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the update! It seems though that nothing has been done to fix
>> the problem with supplementary characters. If this issue can’t be addressed
>> for ES 2017, how about at least throwing an exception if fillString is
>> longer than 1 code unit, so that a future edition can do something more
>> useful when the use cases for these methods become clearer?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>> > On May 25, 2016, at 5:56 , Jordan Harband  wrote:
>> >
>> > Closing the loop on this: this proposal is now stage 4 and will be
>> included in ES 2017. https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/581
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <
>> ecmascr...@lindenbergsoftware.com> wrote:
>> > Thank you for renaming padLeft/padRight to padStart/padEnd.
>> >
>> > On the treatment of code units, I was hoping to find more detail in the
>> meeting minutes, but haven’t seen those yet. The native encoding of strings
>> in the language, with the exception of a few parts that we haven’t been
>> able to fix in EcmaScript 2015, is UTF-16, in which some characters take
>> one code unit and others two code units. The current padStart/padEnd
>> proposal doesn’t take that into consideration – it truncates at code unit
>> boundaries rather than code point boundaries, and thus perpetuates problems
>> stemming from obsolete assumptions about Unicode from 1995.
>> >
>> > For background on the Unicode problems in pre-2015 EcmaScript see:
>> > https://mathiasbynens.be/notes/javascript-unicode
>> > and the proposed solution that got integrated into EcmaScript 2015:
>> >
>> http://norbertlindenberg.com/2012/05/ecmascript-supplementary-characters/
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Norbert
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Nov 17, 2015, at 13:07 , Jordan Harband  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In the TC39 meeting today, we discussed these concerns and decided to
>> rename the proposal from padLeft/padRight to padStart/padEnd (
>> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-string-pad-start-end/commit/35f1ef676f692bfc1099f9ed7c123bd2146f9294)
>> - and correspondingly, to investigate providing trimStart/trimEnd
>> (alongside the legacy trimLeft/trimRight). The consensus remained the same
>> around treatment of code units - which is that, like every other string
>> method, they should conform to the native encoding of strings in the
>> language.
>> > >
>> > > As such, the proposal has now been approved for stage 3 in the TC39
>> process.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks everyone for providing your input!
>> > >
>> > > - Jordan
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Mohsen Azimi  wrote:
>> > > I might be late to this but please don't use "left" and "right" for
>> referring to start and end of a string. In right to left languages it's
>> confusing. As someone who writes right-to-left we have enough of those
>> "left" and "rights" based on English writing direction. CSS made this
>> mistake but corrected it in later specs. Original box model (margin and
>> padding) used left and right but newer flex box spec uses start and end.
>> Because we made a mistake in the past we don't have to repeat it.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Mohsen Azimi
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM Claude Pache 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Le 16 nov. 2015 à 14:01, Alexander Jones  a écrit :
>> > > >
>> > > > I see about as little use case for this as
>> `String.prototype.blink`. Date/hours is better solved with zero padding
>> formatting, not just padding out the already stringified number (think
>> negative values -42). Same applies to filenames for lexicographical
>> sort. Fixed length fields in wire protocols already need to be converted to
>> bytes first before padding, which makes the use of this feature impossible.
>> > >
>> > > Sure, in all those cases I could have used `sprintf` instead of
>> `str_pad`. However, the equivalent of neither one is natively available in
>> JS.
>> > >
>> > > I could write a tagged template that does the equivalent of
>> `sprintf` And `.padLeft^H^H^H^HStart` and `.padEnd` would be nice to
>> have for writing more easily such a tem