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

Stage 0 updates: Withdraw STC, Add Pattern Matching #56

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 11, 2017
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion inactive-proposals.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ Inactive proposals are proposals that at one point were presented to the committ
| [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| [Dynamic Module Reform](https://github.com/caridy/proposal-dynamic-modules) | Caridy Patiño | Withdrawn: we decided to preserve the current semantics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/) | Peter Jensen, Yehuda Katz | [Stage 1](https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es8/2017-03/mar-21.md#conclusionresolution-10): Start with SIMD in WASM; implementations not pursuing SIMD.js for now.

| [Updates to Tail Calls to include an explicit syntactic opt-in](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-ptc-syntax) | Brian Terlson & Eric Faust | Withdrawn in favor of ES6 PTC |
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had a bit more hope for STC--it doesn't seem like anyone's pursuing it at the moment, but I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to bring back up in the future... Would "Inactive in favor of ES6 PTC" be reasonable wording?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suppose withdrawn is more correct, yes. I'll send a subsequent PR I guess.



See also the [stage 0 proposals](stage-0-proposals.md), [active proposals](README.md), and [finished proposals](finished-proposals.md) documents.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion stage-0-proposals.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ Stage 0 proposals are either
| | [Nested `import` declarations](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/646) | Ben Newman, Meteor Development Group | 0 |
| | [Normative ICU Reference](https://github.com/tc39/tc39-notes/blob/master/es8/2017-05/may-23.md#normative-icu-reference) | Domenic Denicola | 0 |
| | [Orthogonal classes](https://github.com/erights/Orthogonal-Classes) | Mark S. Miller, Allen Wirfs-Brock | 0 |
| | [Pattern Matching](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching) | Brian Terlson, Sebastian Markbåge | 0 |
| | [`Reflect.isCallable`/`Reflect.isConstructor`](https://github.com/caitp/TC39-Proposals/blob/master/tc39-reflect-isconstructor-iscallable.md) | Caitlin Potter | 0 |
| | [Relationships](http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:relationships) | Mark Miller & Waldemar Horwat | 0 |
| | [`String.prototype.at`](https://github.com/mathiasbynens/String.prototype.at) | Mathias Bynens & Rick Waldron | 0 |
| | [Structured Clone](https://github.com/dslomov-chromium/ecmascript-structured-clone) | Dmitry Lomov | 0 |
| | [Updates to Tail Calls to include an explicit syntactic opt-in](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-ptc-syntax) | Brian Terlson & Eric Faust | 0 |
| | [WHATWG URL](https://github.com/jasnell/proposal-url) | James M Snell | 0 |
| | [Zones](https://github.com/domenic/zones) ([spec](https://domenic.github.io/zones/)) | Domenic Denicola & Miško Hevery | 0 |

Expand Down