On Friday, April 11, 2014, Michael Dyck <jmdyck at ibiblio.org> wrote:
> On 14-04-06 11:41 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>> The April 5, 2014 ECMAScript 6 Draft Specification (Rev23) is now
>> available at
>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:
>> specification_drafts#april_5_2014_draft_rev_23
>>
>
> I just noticed something odd.
>
> If you open up the PDFs for rev22 and rev23, and compare section 7.3.16
> "GetPrototypeFromConstructor", you'll see that the sub-steps that used to
> be 5.{a,b,c} are now top-level steps {6,7,8}. It's pretty clear that this
> wasn't an intentional change, because now step 5 is an if-then with no
> consequent. To make matters worse, if you open up the PDF with change
> markup, you'll see that this change isn't called out at all. (The only
> marked change in the whole algorithm is a minor deletion in step 3.)
>
> Also, the Note that used to follow the algorithm is now step 10 of the
> algorithm. I'm guessing this is also unintentional, though it's less
> obviously so. But it too has no change markup.
>
> (I don't have MS Word, but if LibreOffice is anything to go by, these
> changes aren't marked in the Word document either.)
>
> It's odd and somewhat worrying that algorithm steps can change their level
> seemingly spontaneously, and without any resultant change markup.
>
> Allen, you did say that all the algorithms have new internal styling, but
> the only side-effect you mentioned was that some might not start at step 1.
>
> Of course, I'll file a bug for this case, and any other I see, but (a) I'll
> probably miss some, and (b) this seems like something that I (or any other
> reviewer) shouldn't have to be doing -- shouldn't the spec-production
> process be more resistant to silent unintended changes?
>
>
You can/should file this but Allen and I discusses the issue at the face to
face and Allen assured me a new draft, hopefully fixed, will be published
sooner.
Rick
-Michael
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140411/8f9d2540/attachment-0001.html>
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-04-15T15:44:21.842Z)
You can/should file this but Allen and I discusses the issue at the face to
face and Allen assured me a new draft, hopefully fixed, will be published
sooner.
On Friday, April 11, 2014, Michael Dyck <jmdyck at ibiblio.org> wrote: > On 14-04-06 11:41 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > >> The April 5, 2014 ECMAScript 6 Draft Specification (Rev23) is now >> available at >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony: >> specification_drafts#april_5_2014_draft_rev_23 >> > > I just noticed something odd. > > If you open up the PDFs for rev22 and rev23, and compare section 7.3.16 > "GetPrototypeFromConstructor", you'll see that the sub-steps that used to > be 5.{a,b,c} are now top-level steps {6,7,8}. It's pretty clear that this > wasn't an intentional change, because now step 5 is an if-then with no > consequent. To make matters worse, if you open up the PDF with change > markup, you'll see that this change isn't called out at all. (The only > marked change in the whole algorithm is a minor deletion in step 3.) > > Also, the Note that used to follow the algorithm is now step 10 of the > algorithm. I'm guessing this is also unintentional, though it's less > obviously so. But it too has no change markup. > > (I don't have MS Word, but if LibreOffice is anything to go by, these > changes aren't marked in the Word document either.) > > It's odd and somewhat worrying that algorithm steps can change their level > seemingly spontaneously, and without any resultant change markup. > > Allen, you did say that all the algorithms have new internal styling, but > the only side-effect you mentioned was that some might not start at step 1. > > Of course, I'll file a bug for this case, and any other I see, but (a) I'll > probably miss some, and (b) this seems like something that I (or any other > reviewer) shouldn't have to be doing -- shouldn't the spec-production > process be more resistant to silent unintended changes? > > You can/should file this but Allen and I discusses the issue at the face to face and Allen assured me a new draft, hopefully fixed, will be published sooner. Rick -Michael > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140411/8f9d2540/attachment-0001.html>