Advance to Stage 3

[mathiasbynens]

Criteria taken from the TC39 process document minus those from previous stages:

• Complete spec text

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-regexp-set-notation#specification

• Designated reviewers have signed off on the current spec text

• @waldemarhorwat: Waldemar's stage 3 review #54
• @gibson042: Normative: Add RegExp v flag with set notation and properties of strings ecma262#2418 (review)
• @msaboff: Michael Saboff's Review #55

• All ECMAScript editors have signed off on the current spec text

• @bakkot: Normative: Add RegExp v flag with set notation and properties of strings ecma262#2418
• @michaelficarra: verbally approved during 2022-03-29 TC39 meeting
• @syg: verbally approved during 2022-03-29 TC39 meeting

[markusicu]

Dear stage 3 reviewers @waldemarhorwat @gibson042 @msaboff -- We have the spec text in the regular format (thanks to @FrankYFTang): https://github.com/tc39/proposal-regexp-set-notation#specification

Please review, and let us know if you find bugs, problems, things that are unclear.

There are still some sections with yellow background; it would be useful if we could take some of them into the final spec, to add explanations and clarifications, like code comments in programming languages. Can we use NOTEs for them, or just prose nearby?

[mathiasbynens]

@waldemarhorwat, @gibson042, @msaboff, our spec PR has already gone through a few rounds of editorial review. Now would be a great time to start your Stage 3 reviews: tc39/ecma262#2418

[markusicu]

@waldemarhorwat, @gibson042, @msaboff, could you please take a look at our proposed changes and let us know if there are blockers for advancing to stage 3?

[markusicu]

FYI @waldemarhorwat has provided his stage 3 review feedback in issue #54. @mathiasbynens and I have addressed the issues there, with one new PR still pending right now.

[gibson042]

Review done at tc39/ecma262#2418 (review) , some nits and one or two substantial questions but nothing that looks like a Stage 3 blocker.

[mathiasbynens]

During today’s TC39 meeting, the remaining editors signed off on the current version, and we reached consensus for Stage 3 — all of that conditional on us addressing the remaining feedback from @gibson042’s review (which we aim to do as soon as possible). PR: #56

[michaelficarra]

@mathiasbynens To clarify, we said we were okay with it advancing to stage 3 without full editor reviews. This doesn't mean the PR will not require any further editorial changes before stage 4, it just means that we are confident we will be able to make them.

[mathiasbynens]

@michaelficarra Ack. We’re happy to address any further feedback. Thanks!

[markusicu]

During today’s TC39 meeting, the remaining editors signed off on the current version, and we reached consensus for Stage 3 — all of that conditional on us addressing the remaining feedback from @gibson042’s review (which we aim to do as soon as possible).

I believe that I am addressing the last of @gibson042's review comments in mathiasbynens/ecma262#14