Incorrect property names in specification for Temporal.ZonedDateTime.prototype.getISOFields #1508
Labels
needs plenary input
Needs to be presented to the committee and feedback incorporated
spec-text
Specification text involved
Milestone
Comments
ptomato
added
spec-text
|
I found an alphabetization error in the spec text for PlainDateTime.getISOFields too! |
ptomato
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 12, 2021
…object This was an oversight due to two pull requests crossing each other. The "iso" prefix was an intentional choice, for consistency, and to keep the possibility of time calendars open. Closes: #1508
ptomato
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 12, 2021
…tISOFields object This was intended to be alphabetical. See: #1508
ptomato
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 12, 2021
…object This was an oversight due to two pull requests crossing each other. The "iso" prefix was an intentional choice, for consistency, and to keep the possibility of time calendars open. Closes: #1508
ptomato
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 12, 2021
…tISOFields object This was intended to be alphabetical. See: #1508
ptomato
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 25, 2021
…object This was an oversight due to two pull requests crossing each other. The "iso" prefix was an intentional choice, for consistency, and to keep the possibility of time calendars open. Closes: #1508
ptomato
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 25, 2021
…tISOFields object This was intended to be alphabetical. See: #1508
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Unlike PlainTime.getISOFields and PlainDateTime.getISOFields which return an object with time properties named
isoHour,isoMinute, etc., ZonedDateTime.getISOFields returns an object with time properties namedhour,minute, etc.The "
iso" prefix was an intentional choice, for consistency, and to keep the possibility of time calendars open. I suspect that this is the result of two pull requests crossing each other, since ZonedDateTime was specified at about the same time that this getISOFields change was made.This is a normative change compared with the proposal at Stage 3, so will need to be presented to TC39 at a future plenary.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: