Ingvar Stepanyan
Ingvar Stepanyan
> once an extension becomes ubiquitous Do you think we should include type annotations then? Which version if so (TypeScript? Flow? ...?)
> For JSX, any parser that implements it is implementing the same form, so it's already a pseudo-standard. I never argued that it's a standard, as well as TypeScript has...
@jeffmo What makes it "not in sync" when in separate repo? My preference is still to keep vendor-specific extensions under their vendors. As a user _(developer)_, I'd rather expect to...
@sebmck 1. It's not harder/easier/different than juggling between files in the same repo. In any case you open both specs in separate browser tabs while working. 2. JSX is not...
@sebmck I don't - that's why I didn't understand your "tight coupling" argument and added `#3` just in case as a solution for "even if there are such extensions ...".
@sebmck I don't see how are they coupled here, as you will be most likely extending base interfaces like `Pattern` and others instead of each possible production, but even if...
Yes, something like `everything.js`-based test would be a good start. In wider meaning, I rather thought about complete test suite - initially Acorn tests anyway derived from Esprima tests, and...
> Oh, like http://test262.ecmascript.org/ Exactly! :smile:
> then can range drop the need for the the raw property #14 Also thought about that, but it can't as location tracking is optional in any parser (and turned...
@isiahmeadows ...and Esprima, and Flow.