- From: David Herman <dherman@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:43:21 -0800
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > From: David Herman <dherman@mozilla.com> > >> Looks nice! Just making sure: does this match the style you and Allen landed on for the ES6 spec (and has the dust settled on that)? This looks promising (sorry) for consistency across both the JS and web specs. > > Well, not terribly. Web specs are generally much less precise and detailed, so I tried to produce some verbiage that would fit with web specs. This allows you to get a lot more across with a lot fewer words, whereas in "ECMASpeak" you need to go through a whole committee (figuratively speaking) just to create an anonymous function. > > But, we do maintain consistency with the general concepts and verbiage. Bummer. But the fault here probably lies with ECMASpeak. Are you losing any precision with this conciseness, or is it really just ECMASpeak's insistence on verbosity? Dave
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 16:43:51 UTC