| 11:18 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | What does MV stand for in https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-string-literals-static-semantics-mv? Mescape Value? |
| 11:22 | <Andreu Botella> | I think mathematical value? It's computing the escape code point number |
| 11:38 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Ohh it makes sense, probably |
| 12:28 | <jmdyck> | The spec used to have phrasing like "are interpreted as having a mathematical value (MV), as described below" until PR #2451 was merged. |
| 12:30 | <littledan> | maybe it'd be helpful to expand this acronym in an editorial PR? |
| 12:30 | <littledan> | (^ good first PR?) |
| 12:34 | <jmdyck> | Do you mean add a sentence that gives the expansion, or change the SDO name to something longer? |
| 12:35 | <littledan> | change the SDO name to something longer |
| 12:35 | <littledan> | (more sentences of explanation are good too but I was suggesting the latter) |
| 12:47 | <jmdyck> | One wrinkle is that if you simply expand "MV" to "MathematicalValue", then you have 2 terms ("MathematicalValue" and "mathematical value") which denote distinct ideas, but only differ by capitalization+spacing, which is probably not good. (Which was sort of the point of #2451, but from a different angle.) |
| 12:48 | <jmdyck> | So if we did rename the SDO, an appropriate name might be something like NumericLiteralValue. |
| 12:54 | <jmdyck> | Similarly, SV -> StringLiteralValue, TV -> TemplateLiteralValue, TRV -> TemplateLiteralRawValue ? I don't know, I think I prefer the current names. |
| 12:55 | <jmdyck> | But I agree that some kind of clarification would be good. |