| 00:55 | <ljharb> | my concerns about advancing decimal remain unchanged. but the rest sgtm |
| 08:15 | <sffc> | Should I cancel the Numerics call this Thursday evening? |
| 08:23 | <Jesse> | sgtm -- I think we're pretty much up-to-date at the moment |
| 08:29 | <sffc> | Only thing is if we wanted to sync with Jordan? |
| 08:31 | <Jesse> | ljharb: would you be able to attend the call this week? |
| 08:33 | <Jesse> | if not that's ok, but it would be great if you could join the call sometime in the near future |
| 08:33 | <Jesse> | it's biweekly |
| 14:48 | <ljharb> | i can’t make it this week, but maybe next time |
| 14:48 | <sffc> | OK in that case I will delete this week's meeting |
| 15:39 | <Jesse> | I've added some initial spec text for Amount: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-measure/pull/28 |
| 15:40 | <Jesse> | it implicitly depends on intl-keep-trailing-zeroes because the approach to handling Amounts in Intl would be to first render them as strings, which could have trailing zeroes |
| 17:40 | <Rob Palmer> | Don't remove Decimal.Amount until we have seen if standalone Amount actually gets Stage 2 |
| 18:51 | <sffc> | There were concerns raised about it in the breakout session |
| 18:52 | <sffc> | Waldemar had some concerns I think about String Amount that didn't apply to Decimal Amount |
| 18:54 | <sffc> | Main issue IIRC was that String Amount doesn't have a well defined range of valid values, whereas Decimal Amount just inherits the range from Decimal |
| 18:55 | <sffc> | So String Amount is effectively adding yet another numeric type, but Decimal Amount is not since it is just a Decimal with metadata |
| 18:56 | <sffc> | I personally don't feel strongly about that point |
| 19:07 | <Rob Palmer> | That makes sense. So a more explicit rewording of your refinement would be: "Amount remains in Decimal if string Amount fails to reach Stage 2 due to the committee prefering Decimals over strings." |
| 19:15 | <sffc> | I'm not aware of other unresolved concerns about Amount other than perhaps motivation, but I feel good about the progress we've made on that front |
| 19:16 | <sffc> | My long standing position (discussed earlier in this channel) remains unchanged |
| 19:23 | <Rob Palmer> | Apologies I did not read up. I see it now. This whole area generates so much written and verbal content... |