So in various github issues TC39 is reliving 30 years of tail call debates (PTC vs TCO, etc.)
@awbjs I'm not in favor of removal but I am in favor of reality. Implementor revolt is a risk of the pre-ES2016 process.
-
-
@wycats we expected push back from some impls. That's why it's in the spec. Shouldn't consider folding on first such push back. Test of time -
@awbjs that reasoning is a holdover from ES2015 process. I don't think it holds up anymore. But I agree that the consensus DOES exist. -
@awbjs and we should make people work hard to establish a new consensus, not just let them retroactively veto. -
@wycats there is no retroactive veto. Removal from spec requires a new consensus which in this case I doubt is achievable. PTC is part of ES -
@awbjs I agree that it requires a new consensus. I think they're trying to get one :) -
@wycats yup and one significant member has said enough to suggest it isn't likely to happen -
.
@wycats but you shouldn't be wasting time on this. Clearly you true calling is writing tweet storms. - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@awbjs we can tell them not to revolt to a point but the committee has limited power ultimately beyond durable consensus. -
@awbjs understanding the limits of durable consensus preserves it, but we shouldn't let ppl undermine it lightly. -
@awbjs TLDR it's complicated and a very tough call for me as a non-implementor member of the committee
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
New conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.