| 17:09 | <Michael Ficarra> | does anyone know where we last discussed this convention? https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3571/files#r2058891137 |
| 17:09 | <Michael Ficarra> | also, nobody objects to me adding it to the editorial conventions doc, right? |
| 17:10 | <Michael Ficarra> | I'll just add it for now and we can remove it if someone objects |
| 17:45 | <jmdyck> | I don't think there's a precedent, and I don't recall it being discussed. PR #2711 had a commit that went in the opposite direction (insertion of "value"): https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2711/commits/3c4c2f5005cb62dceb1931f553d412d47fac362d , suggesting that any precedent or discussion (of deletion of "value") happened after that. |
| 17:48 | <Michael Ficarra> | yeah, pretty sure it was more recent than that |
| 17:55 | <jmdyck> | If the subject had come up (in my presence), I think I would have looked at my pseudocode grammar to see what would need changing, and I'm fairly confident that I've never done that till just now. |
| 18:01 | <jmdyck> | E.g., there are over 100 occurrences of "the String value". |
| 18:16 | <Michael Ficarra> | okay I still can't find it, so maybe I've imagined it |
| 18:17 | <Michael Ficarra> | or maybe I've somehow confused it with our editorial convention of avoiding "the value of" or the notation we use to describe types, I dunno |
| 18:17 | <Michael Ficarra> | anyway, I still like the rule so let me know if anyone has a problem with it |
| 18:19 | <bakkot> | I also recall talking about this in passing |
| 18:20 | <bakkot> | we did make "is a String" link, not "is a String value" |
| 18:26 | <Michael Ficarra> | we also have this related convention:don't unnecessarily qualify object types with the word "object"; x is an Array, not x is an Array object |
| 18:27 | <Michael Ficarra> | generally everything is moving in that direction |