-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Path to Stage 4! #1
Comments
@syg @waldemarhorwat @ljharb , with the normative issues resolved aside from the purposely postponed #16 (see checklist above), This seems ready for spec review. I have placed this item on the agenda to go for 2.7, so would like to be as prepared as possible. For the "spec editor signoff", who are the spec editors? |
You can tag @tc39/ecma262-editors. Currently the editors are myself, @bakkot, and @michaelficarra. |
@syg @waldemarhorwat @bakkot @michaelficarra ping. @syg @bakkot please see @gibson042 responses to your stated concerns. What remaining concerns do you have that should block 2.7 until resolved? @waldemarhorwat @michaelficarra I'd love to see your feedback before asking for stage 2.7. Thanks! |
Current spec draft editorially and normatively lgtm for 2.7. |
Looks good to me, with just one comment:
|
(no opinion on the outcome) but wouldn't the exception prevent subtle bugs caused by the clamping, by throwing? |
See my comment above. Hardly anyone will remember which one clamps and which one throws, so folks relying on throwing will be in for a rude surprise. |
ahhh gotcha, you mean going "backwards". fair point. |
Producing a zero-length immutable buffer from code like |
@waldemarhorwat I think this is explicitly covered by #16 , which is still open. We felt that for the sake of concreteness it was better for the champions to specify according to their preferences at the moment, as long as there is an open issue covering the remaining controversy. In any case, I agree with @gibson042 here, that we are open to removing this difference with Given that, may we check your 2.7 reviewer checkbox (just in time for my presentation ;) ) |
|
Normative: Align ArrayBuffer sliceToImmutable length clamping with slice as suggested by @waldemarhorwat. Thanks!
@gibson042 , thanks! I just approved and merged #41 @waldemarhorwat , in light of your verbal agreement, I'm clicking your checkbox. If we've misunderstood anything, please uncheck and let us know. |
Stage 4
Stage 3
Stage 2.7
transferToImmutable
support anewByteLength
argument? #15.immutable
or.mutable
? #10.immutable
for easy upgrade. Resolved and closed.sliceToImmutable
? #9Stage 2Stage 1The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: