Skip to content
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

Normative Optional: Add WeakRef.prototype.constructor #133

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 4, 2019

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@littledan
Copy link
Member

commented Jun 4, 2019

Fixes #131

@littledan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jun 4, 2019

<p>This property has the attributes { [[Writable]]: *false*, [[Enumerable]]: *false*, [[Configurable]]: *true* }.</p>

<emu-note type="editor">
This section is to be treated identically to the "Annex B" of ECMA-262, but to be written in-line with the main specification.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@ljharb

ljharb Jun 4, 2019

Member

can you elaborate on this conclusion? I’m a bit confused how “reform” seems like just an alternative editorial form of the same semantics.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@littledan

littledan Jun 4, 2019

Author Member

The idea here is to put Annex B inline to make it easier to read. We do this in ECMA-402. We discussed this earlier today in the TC39 meeting; delegates can see the draft notes. Do you have any concerns with this idea?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@ljharb

ljharb Jun 4, 2019

Member

It seems fine, but that's a pretty massive editorial change discussed with no editors present, and wasn't what I expected from a slideless presentation called "reform".

Reviewing the notes gives me a bit more clarity, but I'd still hope to see a few examples of inline normative optional land in the main spec before a proposal added one (that shouldn't block this PR ofc)

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@littledan

littledan Jun 4, 2019

Author Member

Yeah, the plan is that I'll file an issue in ecma262 describing the plan, and we'll work from there in PRs. This PR can be thought of as a really early first draft, editorially; we just need to get it off the ground here and have the observable semantics specified.

@@ -8,6 +8,19 @@
copyright: proposal
contributors: Dean Tribble, Till Schneidereit, Sathya Gunasekaran
</pre>
<style>
[normative-optional] {

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@erights

erights Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

Could you send me a screenshot of how the normal optional text below gets rendered with these stylings?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@littledan

littledan Jun 4, 2019

Author Member

image

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@erights

erights Jun 4, 2019

Contributor

Excellent! I am all in favor. Thanks.

@littledan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jun 4, 2019

OK, I'm landing this PR, since it's an important semantic to get right by Stage 3, and it's had some review here.

@littledan littledan merged commit 1465c3c into master Jun 4, 2019

4 checks passed

Travis CI - Branch Build Passed
Details
Travis CI - Pull Request Build Passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.