Path to Stage 4!

[ljharb]

Stage 4

• committee approval
• implement in two stable browsers/engines
  • polyfills
    • https://www.npmjs.com/package/string.prototype.matchall
    • babel-polyfill via core-js
  • webkit nightly
    • Safari TP
    • Safari stable
  • spidermonkey
    • firefox 66 nightly bug
    • firefox 67 unflagged
  • chakra
  • v8
    • chrome flagged issue
    • chrome unflagged (v74)
• significant in-the-field experience
• ecma262 PR approved
• prepare ecma262 (PR)
• merge test262 tests
• write test262 tests (PR)
• resolve final IsRegExp question issue

Stage 3

• committee approval
• spec editor signoff
• spec reviewer signoff

Stage 2

• receive developer feedback
• committee approval
• spec text written
• spec reviewers selected

[peterwmwong]

@ljharb FYI - an initial V8 implementation has landed (behind a flag) https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/981893

[mathiasbynens]

It sounds like #34 (comment) should be resolved before implementations can ship.

[chicoxyzzy]

It's implemented in core-js now

[ljharb]

I commented here: #34 (comment) - the final IsRegExp call is indeed necessary, and needs to stay (the committee has consensus for the dual behavior, and the call is required to maintain that).

Thus, implementations should absolutely be shipping ASAP.

[littledan]

@ljharb Last time we discussed this in committee, I think I was the only one commenting. After that discussion, @anba made further points online that I find persuasive; I think I didn't understand the issue fully in the previous committee discussion.

[ljharb]

If so, then I’d again request that someone file a new issue so i can track the change and understand the reasoning for coming back to committee.

[mathiasbynens]

@ljharb I’ve opened #37 based on @anba’s proposed change (as a pull request instead of an issue, in the hopes it helps to make the difference clear to others). Let’s move the discussion there.

[mathiasbynens]

Instead of linking to just a single V8 patch, please link to the tracking bug which collects all relevant patches: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/detail?id=6890

[littledan]

@ljharb Last time we discussed this in committee, I think I was the only one commenting. After that discussion, @anba made further points online that I find persuasive; I think I didn't understand the issue fully in the previous committee discussion.

[ljharb]

If so, then I’d again request that someone file a new issue so i can track the change and understand the reasoning for coming back to committee.

[mathiasbynens]

@ljharb I’ve opened #37 based on @anba’s proposed change (as a pull request instead of an issue, in the hopes it helps to make the difference clear to others). Let’s move the discussion there.

[mathiasbynens]

Instead of linking to just a single V8 patch, please link to the tracking bug which collects all relevant patches: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/detail?id=6890

[chicoxyzzy]

It's unflagged in Firefox 67 now

[ljharb]

This proposal reached stage 4 at today's TC39, yay!