-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 106
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Editorial: Use consistent wording for List interactions #774
Conversation
I've found a couple of other examples of the wording you're fixing: negotiation.html:64: negotiation.html:270: |
I'm wondering if by analogy to this change in 262:
we should add a sentence about how unless specified otherwise tables are iterated in table order, and then remove all the instances of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To my eye it looks like there's a couple you've missed, but this is otherwise fantastic
@gibson042 Can you take a look at @ben-allen's feedback? This looks almost mergeable. |
c3def6b
to
9514863
Compare
@ben-allen please re-review!
Thanks; fixed.
I've held off on doing this because I can't find a satisfactory way that is both in scope and discoverable—the latter characteristic being important, and handled in ECMA-262 by internal cross referencing (note how e.g. FindViaPredicate step 4 iterates over indices, which is defined in either step 2 or 3 to be a List with a link to the very section establishing the "When an algorithm iterates over the elements of a List without specifying an order, the order used is the order of the elements in the List" convention). We can pursue this in a followup. |
Align with ECMA-262: