ES Discuss - Message History

Allen Wirfs-Brock (2013-09-25T16:47:40.000Z)

Go to Source

On Sep 24, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:

> My concern is similar to Anne's. codePointAt will most likely not give
> the right behavior and I'm concerned adding this without working
> raising the bar significantly.
> 
> Since this is already implementable in ES3 I don't see why we should rush this?
> 
> I think we should apply the post ES6 process to this. Let's ship it
> when we feel confident that we got this right.

codePointAt is part of a larger comprehensive proposal [1] and was discussed in the context of that proposal at the March 2012 TC39 meeting [2].  There isn't a lot of detail in the notes but I'm pretty sure we talked about why the proposed definition of codePointAt makes sense.  We changed several things about the proposal at that meeting, but not codePointAt. I don't see anything new in this thread that should cause us to revisit the consensus we already have.

Allen

[1] http://norbertlindenberg.com/2012/05/ecmascript-supplementary-characters/index.html 
[2] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021919.html 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130925/a8f95c7f/attachment.html>

domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-10-01T20:43:14.699Z)

On Sep 24, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:

> My concern is similar to Anne's. codePointAt will most likely not give
> the right behavior and I'm concerned adding this without working
> raising the bar significantly.
> 
> Since this is already implementable in ES3 I don't see why we should rush this?
> 
> I think we should apply the post ES6 process to this. Let's ship it
> when we feel confident that we got this right.

codePointAt is part of [a larger comprehensive proposal][1] and was discussed in the context of that proposal [at the March 2012 TC39 meeting][2].  There isn't a lot of detail in the notes but I'm pretty sure we talked about why the proposed definition of codePointAt makes sense.  We changed several things about the proposal at that meeting, but not codePointAt. I don't see anything new in this thread that should cause us to revisit the consensus we already have.

[1]: http://norbertlindenberg.com/2012/05/ecmascript-supplementary-characters/index.html 
[2]: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021919.html

Edit