@awbjs as far as the spec is concerned TCO is "unobservable" therefore JSC does not need to revert it.
@awbjs just because it's a new consensus doesn't mean someone can make claims that aren't true and expect us to go along.
-
-
@wycats I'm losing track of the indirect opaque references and not going to be decided here. But the pot did need a little stiring. -
@awbjs the claim that there's an interop with removal issue because JSC already impl'ed is either wrong or missing significant detail. -
@awbjs that doesn't mean we can remove. But if it's the best the pro-keeping camp has, it doesn't move me. -
@awbjs they'd have better success arguing on the merits of the feature than making process objections based on inaccurate claims. -
@awbjs it would not be hard to avoid a new anti-PTC consensus just by arguing for PTC strongly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@awbjs consensus isn't the same thing as "you get a veto, you get a veto, everybody gets a veto"Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.