New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implementation status #71

Open
chicoxyzzy opened this Issue Jul 25, 2018 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@chicoxyzzy
Copy link

chicoxyzzy commented Jul 25, 2018

  • - V8 / Chrome 69
  • - SpiderMonkey / Firefox 62
  • - JSC / Safari 12
  • - ChakraCore / Edge 19 probably
@keithamus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

keithamus commented Jul 27, 2018

ChakraCore issue Microsoft/ChakraCore#5543

@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

chicoxyzzy commented Aug 8, 2018

ChakraCore PR Microsoft/ChakraCore#5573

@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

chicoxyzzy commented Aug 21, 2018

@bterlson @michaelficarra all major browsers has implemented these features. test262 already have tests (flat, flatMap). It seems that proposal needs just PR to ecma262 to become ES2019

@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Aug 21, 2018

It’d also need committee consensus.

@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

chicoxyzzy commented Aug 21, 2018

It could be too late for consensus when most of browsers will start to ship it on by default.

  • Chrome 69 will be released on September 4
  • Firefox 62 will be released on September 5
  • Safari 12 will be released on September 12 presumably

While next TC39 meeting will happen on September 25

@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Aug 21, 2018

I’m not sure what you mean by “too late”; stage 4 requires 1-2 shipping implementations minimum (at which point it’s web incompatible to unship it), but there’s no maximum.

@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

chicoxyzzy commented Aug 21, 2018

Oh. I though that by consensus you mean something like approvement from committee. That unshipping compatibility rule makes sense to me.

@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Aug 21, 2018

Yes, the committee needs to officially approve stage 4 as well.

@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

chicoxyzzy commented Aug 21, 2018

So if feature won't be approved in the time when it will be shipped in most browsers then it won't go to spec. Though browsers can't unship this feature. Probably other environments will also ship that unspecced feature to make it possible to port code which works on those browsers to their platform. It seems like a big problem. Not sure I understand you correctly though

@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Aug 21, 2018

I think you do; that something can’t be removed isn’t the same thing as that thing being in the spec, because that requires consensus. It’s all in the process document.

@tschneidereit

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

tschneidereit commented Aug 21, 2018

This is correct in principle, as the TC39 process requires explicit committee approval for stage advancement. In practice, this is a rubber stamp and an opportunity to do a round of applause in a committee meeting :)

@michaelficarra

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

michaelficarra commented Aug 21, 2018

Championing a proposal is (most of the time) a whole lot of work, and that round of applause means a lot. Looking forward to finally putting a bow on this one.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment