Philip Chimento
Philip Chimento
This is a mistake in the spec text, I am planning to present this normative change at the next TC39 plenary: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/1862 Assuming it is accepted, the test will subsequently...
I think this can be closed, since the change was incorporated and the test is correct now.
I don't know either way whether this usage exists, so this is just my speculation: I'd guess test262 would need to be more widely known among developers for this to...
Yes, this was a discrepancy with the spec text. I'm hoping to present that normative change at the December TC39 meeting. I guess it's up to the maintainers whether to...
I didn't get a chance to finish this for December and I'm hoping to present it at the March TC39 meeting.
What you say seems correct. Would you like to make a PR for this?
re. exhaustive features list, shrug; the documentation in features.txt says about stage 4 features: > Language features that have been included in a published version of the ECMA-262 specification. These...
Fair enough, I'd say we should avoid putting that burden on test contributors though :smile: Let's open an issue to review that documentation in features.txt and do something like add...
Agreed, let's land this now as it's been waiting for a long time, and update #3664
I understood that another PR was still needed with tests for different values of `roundingPriority` (https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3405#pullrequestreview-907898302)