On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:

> On Feb 14, 2014, at 1:34 AM, Mathias Bynens wrote:
>
> > Allen mentioned that `String#at` might not make it to ES6 because nobody
> in TC39 is championing it. I've now asked Rick if he would be the champion
> for this, and he agreed. (Thanks again!)
> >
> > Looking over the 'TC39 progress' document at <
> https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/document/d/1QbEE0BsO4lvl7NFTn5WXWeiEIBfaVUF7Dk0hpPpPDzU>,
> it seems most of the work is already taken care of: the use case was
> discussed in this thread, the proposal has a complete spec text, and
> there's an example implementation/polyfill with unit tests. See <
> http://mths.be/at>.
> >
> > Is there anything else I can do to help get this included as a
> non-TC39-member?
> >
>
> But just to be even clear,  the new feature gate for ES6 is officially
> closed.


> It's a really high bar to get over that closed gate.  Unless the exclusion
> of a feature was a mistake, fixes a bug, or is somehow essentially to
> supporting something that is already in ES6 I don't think we should be
> talking about adding it to ES6.
>
> I don't think String.prototype.at fits any of those criteria.  We've
> talked about it several times, including in the context of Norbert's
> original ES6 full unicode support proposal, and never achieved consensus on
> including it.  Personally, I think it should be there but it's time to
> start talking about it for ES7 not ES6.
>

Yes, I absolutely agree, apologies as I realize that was not addressed in
my previous message.

Rick


> Allen
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140214/e2cc6084/attachment.html>

Yes, I absolutely agree, apologies as I realize that was not addressed in
my previous message.