Stage 3 tracking

[bakkot]

This proposal achieved stage 2 at the May 2018 meeting. This is a tracking issue for getting stage 3.

• Complete spec text
• Designated reviewers sign-off:
  • @michaelficarra
  • @mattijs
• Editor sign-off (1 required)
  • @bmeck
  • @bterlson
  • @ljharb _{as a proposal champion, can not perform editor review}
• Committee consensus

[bathos]

@bakkot Out of curiosity, is it expected that stage 3 will be discussed in July?

[bakkot]

@bathos Not sure yet; it depends on how much time various committee members have. I'll update when I know.

[mattijs]

Reviewed the spec text, LGTM

[bmeck]

Spec text looks good.

[michaelficarra]

I don't like the fact that 4.d. has a single sub-step (i). This can be removed. Otherwise LGTM.

[ljharb]

Hmm, it seems a little long, and hiding the fact that it returns early, if it’s inlined. Why don’t you like the single substep?

[bterlson]

@ljharb if X, return has precedence and is used elsewhere in this algorithm so I tend to agree with @michaelficarra that it'd be preferable stylistically.

The only other comment I'd make is that the note at the end could probably just be prose at the top ala how e.g. parseFloat contains a normative description before the algorithm steps.

[bterlson]

Otherwise LGTM!

[ljharb]

Sounds good, I'll make those changes now, and check off your boxes afterwards.

[bakkot]

@bathos, update as promised: looks like we're going to try for stage 3 at the July meeting.

[bakkot]

This achieved stage 3 at the July 2018 meeting!