Ariya Hidayat
Ariya Hidayat
> @kensoh the real problem is maintainers failed at making this project profitable and being able to work full time on it. True @gsouf! But I can live with that...
_**[[email protected]](http://code.google.com/u/103266860731871773002/) commented:**_ > _**Metadata Updates**_ - **Milestone updated:** Release1.8 (was: Release1.7)
_**[[email protected]](http://code.google.com/u/103266860731871773002/) commented:**_ > Rescheduled to 1.9. _**Metadata Updates**_ - **Milestone updated:** Release1.9 (was: Release1.8)
When proposing ideas for solving this problem, please keep in mind that it has be **realistic** and there is a possibility of a **follow-up**.
Some ideas from #14541, as proposed by (among others) @gsouf @Ivanca @annulen: - Create a source of funding to pay someone to work on PhantomJS - Build a business that...
I think the real question is here, why there is `More options` at all for Boolean values?
Consider that we still have spotty code coverage on the front-end, isn't merging a bunch of dependencies like this at once quite dangerous? Also, not every project is adhering to...
I haven't investigated do expressions yet. BTW, why is the type `Identifier`?
@RReverser That requires the node location to be specified. A code generator that takes an AST may not need the location at all, but it can benefit from `raw`.
Thanks for the report and feel free to fix it!