Re: ES6 __proto__ test suite

2013-04-24 Thread David Bruant
Le 23/04/2013 23:47, Rick Waldron a écrit : On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com mailto:bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Based on recent messages on es-discuss, I feel that both es-discuss and apparently even TC39 meetings with notes have left

Re: ES6 __proto__ test suite

2013-04-24 Thread Rick Waldron
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:14 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Le 23/04/2013 23:47, Rick Waldron a écrit : On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Based on recent messages on es-discuss, I feel that both es-discuss and apparently even TC39

ES6 __proto__ test suite

2013-04-23 Thread David Bruant
Hi, Based on recent messages on es-discuss, I feel that both es-discuss and apparently even TC39 meetings with notes have left ambiguity in what people understood the TC39 agreement was. I believe this ambiguity is due to this pretty bad communication format called the English language (For

Re: ES6 __proto__ test suite

2013-04-23 Thread Andrea Giammarchi
test driven specs development ... I like that. Everything seems to be OK except one test is missing which is the key for me, the (hopefully not) poisoned setter On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:34 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Based on recent messages on es-discuss, I feel that

Re: ES6 __proto__ test suite

2013-04-23 Thread Rick Waldron
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Based on recent messages on es-discuss, I feel that both es-discuss and apparently even TC39 meetings with notes have left ambiguity in what people understood the TC39 agreement was. I believe this ambiguity is due