-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
Normative Optional: Add WeakRef.prototype.constructor #133
Conversation
<p>This property has the attributes { [[Writable]]: *false*, [[Enumerable]]: *false*, [[Configurable]]: *true* }.</p> | ||
|
||
<emu-note type="editor"> | ||
This section is to be treated identically to the "Annex B" of ECMA-262, but to be written in-line with the main specification. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can you elaborate on this conclusion? I’m a bit confused how “reform” seems like just an alternative editorial form of the same semantics.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The idea here is to put Annex B inline to make it easier to read. We do this in ECMA-402. We discussed this earlier today in the TC39 meeting; delegates can see the draft notes. Do you have any concerns with this idea?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems fine, but that's a pretty massive editorial change discussed with no editors present, and wasn't what I expected from a slideless presentation called "reform".
Reviewing the notes gives me a bit more clarity, but I'd still hope to see a few examples of inline normative optional land in the main spec before a proposal added one (that shouldn't block this PR ofc)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, the plan is that I'll file an issue in ecma262 describing the plan, and we'll work from there in PRs. This PR can be thought of as a really early first draft, editorially; we just need to get it off the ground here and have the observable semantics specified.
@@ -8,6 +8,19 @@ | |||
copyright: proposal | |||
contributors: Dean Tribble, Till Schneidereit, Sathya Gunasekaran | |||
</pre> | |||
<style> | |||
[normative-optional] { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you send me a screenshot of how the normal optional text below gets rendered with these stylings?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Excellent! I am all in favor. Thanks.
OK, I'm landing this PR, since it's an important semantic to get right by Stage 3, and it's had some review here. |
Fixes #131