Permalink
Browse files

Move SIMD to inactive proposals.

  • Loading branch information...
ljharb committed Jun 20, 2017
1 parent 8d043f0 commit 35e0032d8b1cb5249a80629eabdd2c444acdea6a
Showing with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
  1. +0 −1 README.md
  2. +1 −0 inactive-proposals.md
View
@@ -11,7 +11,6 @@ This list contains only stage 1 proposals and higher that have not yet been with
| 🚀 | Proposal | Champion | Stage |
|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------|
| | [SIMD.JS - SIMD APIs](https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript_simd/) | John McCutchan, Peter Jensen, Dan Gohman, Daniel Ehrenberg | 3 |
| | [`Function.prototype.toString` revision](https://github.com/tc39/Function-prototype-toString-revision) | Michael Ficarra | 3 |
|   | [`global`](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-global)                                                       | Jordan Harband                     | 3 |
| | [Rest/Spread Properties](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-object-rest-spread) | Sebastian Markbage | 3 |
View
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ Inactive proposals are proposals that at one point were presented to the committ
| [Cancelable Promises](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-cancelable-promises) | Domenic Denicola | Withdrawn |
| [Proposed Grammar change to ES Modules](https://github.com/bmeck/UnambiguousJavaScriptGrammar) | Bradley Farias | Rejected: No consensus on this specific solution.
| [Dynamic Module Reform](https://github.com/caridy/proposal-dynamic-modules) | Caridy Patiño | Withdrawn: we decided to preserve the current semantics
| [SIMD.JS - SIMD APIs](https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript_simd/) | John McCutchan, Peter Jensen, Dan Gohman, Daniel Ehrenberg | [Withdrawn](https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es8/2017-03/mar-21.md#conclusionresolution-10)

5 comments on commit 35e0032

@littledan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@littledan

littledan Jun 20, 2017

Member

Thanks, looks good to me.

Member

littledan replied Jun 20, 2017

Thanks, looks good to me.

@bterlson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bterlson

bterlson Jun 20, 2017

Member

I'm confused by the discussion from the March meeting... is Withdrawn the right thing here (as opposed to demotion to state 1)?

Member

bterlson replied Jun 20, 2017

I'm confused by the discussion from the March meeting... is Withdrawn the right thing here (as opposed to demotion to state 1)?

@littledan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@littledan

littledan Jun 20, 2017

Member

Would it be reasonable to put it under "inactive proposals" and note that it's at Stage 1 with the two caretaker champions mentioned at the last meeting?

Member

littledan replied Jun 20, 2017

Would it be reasonable to put it under "inactive proposals" and note that it's at Stage 1 with the two caretaker champions mentioned at the last meeting?

@bterlson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bterlson

bterlson Jun 20, 2017

Member

That does align better with what I understood the consensus to be...

Member

bterlson replied Jun 20, 2017

That does align better with what I understood the consensus to be...

@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ljharb
Member

ljharb replied Jun 21, 2017

Please sign in to comment.