Skip to content
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
@@ -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 |
@@ -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| [Cancelable Promises](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-cancelable-promises) | Domenic Denicola | Withdrawn |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| [Dynamic Module Reform](https://github.com/caridy/proposal-dynamic-modules) | Caridy Patiño | Withdrawn: we decided to preserve the current semantics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- SIMD APIs](https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript_simd/) | John McCutchan, Peter Jensen, Dan Gohman, Daniel Ehrenberg | [Withdrawn](https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es8/2017-03/mar-21.md#conclusionresolution-10)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.

Copy link
Member

@littledan littledan replied Jun 20, 2017

Thanks, looks good to me.

@bterlson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@bterlson 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 is Withdrawn the right thing here (as opposed to demotion to state 1)?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.

Copy link
Member

@littledan 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.

Copy link
Member

@bterlson bterlson replied Jun 20, 2017

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

@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@ljharb ljharb replied Jun 21, 2017

Please sign in to comment.
You can’t perform that action at this time.