Claude Pache

Given that a random proposal * has a statistically significant chance to be rejected, withdrawn or abandoned (see https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/master/inactive-proposals.md), * can be underspecified or undergo significant changes at early stages,...

When I tested the behaviour [nine months ago](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/785#issuecomment-278101975), 3 browsers out of 4 didn’t throw on `[1].sort({})`. The [incriminated change of the spec](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/commit/564b30b3b1bbba3772a2ebeb58208043713d64fe), contrarly to what was stated in its...

> I believe that at least class extends null did. The tested semantics of `class extends null` was retracted after having been briefly present in spec, see https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/781

> It was removed from spec completely: Yes, and the Non-standard table contains many stuff that is not, will not be, or was removed from spec.

Also: the stuff that is proposed to be added to that compat table is *not* the stuff that was removed from spec. The spec just added a poison pill in...

Note that an (unspecified) difference between base 10 and other bases, is that only the former makes use of the scientific notation (`1.2e+34`).

Yes, the main problem is the width of the table (a wide screen is barely sufficient), and that was an obvious solution for the issue. Making the four types hide-able...

Or something like this? 

Trying to disguise function declarations into expressions raises some issues, however. 1. The completion value of declarations (and empty statements) is not exactly `undefined`, but `empty`, meaning that the completion...

@JHawkley The title of this issue is ”Do-Expressions vs IIFEs”, but you are in fact comparing ”do-blocks” and “do-arrows”. You’ll say that ”do-arrows” are ”IIFEs”. That’s true semantically, but not...