Revert previous spec alterations

[dusave]

Based on a breakout session and laying out all aspects of this proposal, I believe we have reached a positive conclusion and have broad agreement on the entirety of this proposal.

[mAAdhaTTah]

have broad agreement on the entirety of this proposal.

Does this include the token?

[dusave]

@mAAdhaTTah That includes the proposed token. Not all like it, but we agree it's the best of the presented options and it will not be blocked on that when seeking stage advancement.

[jackkoppa]

@dustinsavery, that's fantastic! Thank you for advocating for this. Does that breakout section, and the spec as it will now stand, make you fully optimistic about the March conference Stage 2 proposal?

[dusave]

I'm pretty optimistic now, yes! But given the history, I'm also cautious. People could forget why they were in support of it in 4 months 😄

[hax]

@dustinsavery Could I ask what's the proposed tokens now?

[Zarel]

@hax Just look at the "Files changed" tab. It's being restored to the original proposal:

obj?.prop       // optional static property access
obj?.[expr]     // optional dynamic property access
func?.(...args) // optional function or method call

(I'm pretty happy with this one; it's overwhelmingly the most popular option, and the only option that had a positive vote total in the poll.)