2017-01 meeting summary #61
Conversation
|
|
| This proposal advanced to stage 1 with overwhelming support from the committee given it's usefulness. That said, there is substantial concern about the behavior of this | ||
| operator in several edge cases. This is a common complexity when adding syntax to a language. | ||
|
|
||
| ### RegExp Lookbehind |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lookbehind got stage 2 in November - Named Capture Groups is the one that hit stage 2 this meeting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
GAH! We talked about both :-) Thank you, will fix.
reports/TC39/2017-01.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| There is a feeling on the committee that it may be better to implement a bigint type - that is to say a type that is not limited to 64 bits, and can be optimized | ||
| to the appropriate size based on the code, variables, and underlying system as appropriate. However, this presents more work in specification. If anybody has specific | ||
| arguments about why a bigint type would be strongly preferable to an int64 type, we would be interested to hear your argument. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It wasn't clear after discussion that it would be more work - BE is going to investigate whether speccing BigInt is feasible in his time budget.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that's phrased wrong. I agree.
reports/TC39/2017-01.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| In addition, if you want to contribute your opinions, remember that TC39 discusses proposals on [GitHub](https://github.com/tc39) where you are welcome to have a voice. | ||
|
|
||
| Finally, you can contribute code! TC39 maintains a test suite called [test262](https://github.com/tc39/test262) that validates conformance of implementations to the spec. They would love more help to get further test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
s/validates conformance of implementations to the spec/provides specs features acceptance/
The specs are just a recommendation, with it, TC39 does not require specific conformance. The difference is subtle.
Don't merge - needs review. @kborchers and @bterlson given I am a first-timer I"m sure I botched something here. Can I get a review?
Also, this is a draft and I'm sure there are grammatical errors, but I'm going to go eat dinner now.