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
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
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
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo