-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
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
Sept 2017 #28
Comments
Pipeline operator to Stage 1: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator a |> b |> c
// - - -
c(b(a)) |
Extensible literals to Stage 1: https://github.com/littledan/proposal-extensible-numeric-literals
|
|
@mathiasbynens: I don't think there's anything for us to implement with those. 😉 |
@jridgewell Given the feedback during the meeting, I’d say the same goes for the extensible literals proposal and (to a lesser extent) the pipeline operator. |
Could at least get the syntax in for pipeline, would be interesting trying to do multiple transforms via options (and could test in the REPL for people, assuming we get those options in) |
What I mean is the |
First Class Protocols to stage 1: https://github.com/michaelficarra/proposal-first-class-protocols protocol ProtocolName {
// declare a symbol which must be implemented
thisMustBeImplemented;
// and some methods that you get for free by implementing this protocol
youGetThisMethodForFree(...parameters) {
methodBody;
}
}
class ClassName implements ProtocolName {
[ProtocolName.thisMustBeImplemented]() {
// this is the implementation for this class
}
}
let instance = new ClassName;
instance[ProtocolName.youGetThisMethodForFree](); |
@jridgewell Sweet.js implementation with pretty comprehensive test suite located here: https://github.com/disnet/sweet-interfaces Polyfill implementing the |
Early errors for RegExp literals: Would this have been covered with test262 tests anyway? |
export-ns-from: to Stage 4 (needs consensus) |
Throw expressions to stage 2: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-throw-expressions a || throw new Error('test'); |
Optional Chaining remains at Stage 1 😢. Still need to update to remove |
Private methods and accessors to stage 3: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-methods |
Nullary Coalescing from Stage 0 to Stage 1 #14
// concerns about cross-cutting concerns with |
Partial application to Stage 1: https://github.com/rbuckton/proposal-partial-application |
@jridgewell With strong objections to the syntax that is currently associated with the proposal. |
For partial application, please note that there is a not-insignificant number of members that believe that the proposal will not be able to be made viable. |
import.meta to Stage 3 |
Note that extensible numeric literals had significant objections to syntax and semantics as well. |
Hi everyone, could you please elaborate a bit more what is happening with partial application proposal? I would love to see it moving forward but based on your comments, I guess it is not gonna be an easy process. Thanks. |
You can check the individual issues @mgtitimoli #32 - and the notes will be posted in a few weeks |
|
New Proposals
::a
)Moving Foward
import.meta
from Stage 2 to Stage 3Needs Consensus (Stage 4)
Needs Spec Work
?.
and use of?.[
and?.(
in general,?.
syntax is desired but may not align with?.[
and?.(
but?&.
and other syntax changes are not preferred)Builtins.typeOf()
andBuiltins.is()
stays at Stage 0Other (Builtins, etc)
Intl.NumberFormat.prototype.formatToParts
to Stage 4Intl.Segmenter
to Stage 3Intl.RelativeTimeFormat
to Stage 3Atomics.waitAsync
to Stage 2Intl.PluralRules
to Stage 4Array.prototype.flatMap
andArray.prototype.flatten
from Stage 1 to Stage 2Intl.Locale
to Stage 1String.prototype.matchAll
to Stage 2.next
method once, at the beginning, of the iteration protocol tc39/ecma262#988The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: