Skip to content

Conversation

@FrankYFTang
Copy link
Contributor

@FrankYFTang FrankYFTang commented Oct 22, 2025

Address #1031

NumberFormat does this for a while but the recently added compactDisply for PluralRule is not

This fix is necessary because

  1. compatDisplay does not make sense if notation is not compact
  2. costly to implement resolvedOptions() w/o in v8 since currently v8 depends on icu's skeleton to get the compactDisplay and there are no defined value for the case while notation is not compact

Address #1031
This is necessary because
1. compatDisplay does not make sense if notation is not compact
2. costly to implement resolvedOptions() w/o in v8 since currently v8 depends on icu's skeleton to get the compactDisplay and there are no defined value for the case while notation is not compact
@FrankYFTang FrankYFTang requested a review from ben-allen October 22, 2025 22:50
@FrankYFTang FrankYFTang moved this to Priority Issues in ECMA-402 Meeting Topics Oct 22, 2025
@FrankYFTang FrankYFTang requested review from gibson042 and sffc October 22, 2025 22:51
@FrankYFTang FrankYFTang changed the title Normative: set compatDisplay only if notation is "compact" Normative: In PluralRules, set compatDisplay only if notation is "compact" Oct 22, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@sffc sffc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Third attempt at fixing #399. Hopefully this one sticks.

@sffc sffc changed the title Normative: In PluralRules, set compatDisplay only if notation is "compact" Normative: In PluralRules, set compactDisplay only if notation is "compact" Nov 4, 2025
Copy link
Member

@ryzokuken ryzokuken left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM apart from this one comment

@dminor dminor requested a review from anba November 6, 2025 13:06
@dminor
Copy link

dminor commented Nov 6, 2025

@anba This makes sense to me, but it would be great if you could have a quick look as well :)

@anba
Copy link
Contributor

anba commented Nov 6, 2025

@anba This makes sense to me, but it would be great if you could have a quick look as well :)

The change looks good to me!

@FrankYFTang
Copy link
Contributor Author

reach consensus in TC39 TG1 2025-11-18 10:51 AM JST

@FrankYFTang
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please merge. thanks

@FrankYFTang
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ben-allen please merge. I have not right to merge

@ryzokuken ryzokuken merged commit f4012d7 into main Dec 4, 2025
3 checks passed
@ryzokuken ryzokuken deleted the FrankYFTang-patch-2 branch December 4, 2025 18:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

has consensus Has consensus from TC39-TG2 normative

Projects

Status: Previously Discussed

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants