remove entries for proposals that were never presented - #605
remove entries for proposals that were never presented#605michaelficarra wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
| | [TypedArray stride parameter][typedarray-stride-parameter] | Shu-yu Guo | Withdrawn: concern about performance implications, and the proposal is not expressive enough | <sub> -[2020‑09][typedarray-stride-parameter-notes]<br /> -[2020‑03][typedarray-stride-parameter-notes-2020-03]</sub> | | ||
| | [Unused Function Parameters][unused-params] | Gus Caplan | Rejected: the need to solve the problem does not outweigh the hazards | <sub> -[2020‑09][unused-params-notes]</sub> | | ||
| | [Improving iteration on Objects][object-iteration] | Jonathan Keslin | Withdrawn: concern about need for such an API | <sub> -[2020‑02][object-iteration-notes]</sub> | | ||
| | [`String.prototype.at`][string-at] | Mathias Bynens<br />Rick Waldron | Obsoleted by renamed `String.prototype.item` proposal | <sub>Never presented</sub> | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i could have sworn this was actually presented pre ES6; i can't load https//wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:string_at (or on archive.org) to check though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It says never presented, so I trusted it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added that in 87e98c8, likely because it wasn't present in the notes, but that doesn't mean it's correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The notes are the canonical record of the committee's work, so I think "not present in the notes" is the actual standard we should use.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would be a reasonable change to make, although it'd preclude anything presented before ~2012 that hadn't been presented since, but at this point that's probably ok.
9564755 to
d24a2af
Compare
c44d18f to
091a5ef
Compare
| | [RegExp Atomic Groups & Possessive Quantifiers][re-atomic-groups] | Justin Ridgewell | engines are not interested in the feature, mainly because it doesn't solve backtracking for most users | <sub> -[2021‑10][re-atomic-groups-notes]</sub> | | ||
| | [RefCollection][refcollection] | Robin Ricard | Withdrawn; replaced with [Symbols as WeakMap keys][symbols-weakmap]; also there were OCAP/membrane concerns around providing a globally available pre-instantiated RefCollection | <sub> -[2020‑04][refcollection-notes]</sub> | | ||
| | [Generic Comparison][spaceship] | Hemanth HM<br />Jordan Harband | Withdrawn: replaced with [Array Equality][array-equality] | <sub> -[2020‑06][spaceship-notes]</sub> | | ||
| | [`from ... import`][fromimport] | Bradley Farias | Never presented; preliminary feedback about syntax cost not being worth the weight | <sub>Never presented</sub> | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think this is worth keeping here; maybe it'd be better to tweak the heading text to allow for never-presented proposals from delegates who got negative feedback prior to presenting?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the purpose of this repo is for formal record. There is no formal record of this proposal being presented, so I don't think it belongs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sure, but there's a repo - https://github.com/bmeck/proposal-from-import - and this helps ensure that if anyone tries to bring the idea back, they have context. The repo doesn't have to confine itself to plenaries - it's a tool, and it can do whatever's useful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm sure there's plenty of community-authored proposals that would also be helpful links for anyone who independently has the same idea. I just don't think this is the right place to aggregate them. This repo, IMO, is an official historical record of this committee's work. And from the committee's perspective, these proposals don't exist.
091a5ef to
94b380d
Compare
94b380d to
38b30f5
Compare
3 participants
The description of this document states
As a follow-up, we should mark each entry with one of those 3 statuses.