>> Good point. That “meaning for new features” should probably be clearly stated and dictate how `Object.assign()` behaves.
>> 
>> I know this runs counter the conventional wisdom for specs, but I find design rationales incredibly important for making sense of what’s going on: The answers and discussions on this mailing list were essential in helping me understand the language.
> 
> I happily put in informative NOTE's when it seems important to clarify intent for  implementors (and even future spec. editors).  Feel free to file bugs any time you find a place in the spec. where you think something needs to be clarified in that manner. 
> 
> You guys who read the drafts are the beta testers of the specification and your feedback is really useful for finding places where the clarity needs to be improved.


Just to be clear: this one is not (necessarily) on you, you have your work cut out for you, anyway. I’m thinking more along the lines along a companion document. But NOTEs are a great idea, I’ll keep it in mind while reading the spec.

Axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de

home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140111/b97f50aa/attachment.html>

> I happily put in informative NOTE's when it seems important to clarify intent for  implementors (and even future spec. editors).  Feel free to file bugs any time you find a place in the spec. where you think something needs to be clarified in that manner. 
> 
> You guys who read the drafts are the beta testers of the specification and your feedback is really useful for finding places where the clarity needs to be improved.


Just to be clear: this one is not (necessarily) on you, you have your work cut out for you, anyway. I’m thinking more along the lines along a companion document. But NOTEs are a great idea, I’ll keep it in mind while reading the spec.