| 03:12 | <jmdyck> | wah, when I try to "Load diff" for #2547, I get "Oops, something went wrong." |
| 03:13 | <jmdyck> | It worked for my first review. Maybe it's just bigger enough now. |
| 03:17 | <jmdyck> | I guess I'll submit a PR against GH-1796. |
| 03:31 | <bakkot> | I think github has a time-to-render limit where it bails if it takes too long, and sometimes it happens to be faster (maybe when it is less busy?) |
| 03:34 | <jmdyck> | ah, plausible. |
| 03:35 | <jmdyck> | So I've submitted what I've found up to the point of running static type analysis. |
| 03:36 | <jmdyck> | It might take a while to adapt that. |
| 16:53 | <ljharb> | thoughts on https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2547#discussion_r800079335 ? |
| 17:00 | <Michael Ficarra> | ljharb: I don't like it any better than normally containing |
| 17:01 | <Michael Ficarra> | jmdyck: I incorporated/addressed your comments |
| 17:01 | <ljharb> | it doesn't strongly imply that the abnormally containing situation is possible, tho |
| 17:01 | <ljharb> | "normally" implies that, in english |
| 17:02 | <Michael Ficarra> | I think that, as long as we are okay with the fundamentals of that PR, we can merge it once we get the ecmarkup bump in and do any corrections as follow-ups |
| 17:02 | <Michael Ficarra> | the spec previously didn't have practically any AO return types, so it's an improvement regardless IMO |
| 17:03 | <Michael Ficarra> | ljharb: we should talk about it more in the editor call Wednesday |
| 17:03 | <Michael Ficarra> | I will add the label |
| 17:04 | <jmdyck> | I prefer iljharb's sugg (or something similar) to "normally containing", because it can be more specific about the abrupt possibilities of the return value. |
| 17:09 | <Michael Ficarra> | jmdyck: you're welcome to attend the editor calls if you like, they are open attendance |
| 17:10 | <jmdyck> | thanks for the invitation. Where's the attendance info? |
| 17:12 | <Michael Ficarra> | it's on the TC39 calendar, which is.... somewhere |
| 17:13 | <jmdyck> | maybe somewhere accessible only to delegates? |
| 17:14 | <Michael Ficarra> | lol https://github.com/tc39/how-we-work/issues/94 |
| 17:14 | <Michael Ficarra> | no I am pretty sure the TC39 events calendar is meant to be public |
| 17:14 | <Michael Ficarra> | all the events on it other than plenary are all open attendance to my knowledge |
| 17:15 | <bakkot> | it links notes documents from plenary while they are in progress, which are definitely not meant to be public |
| 17:15 | <jmdyck> | incubator calls are 'publicized' (https://github.com/tc39/incubator-agendas), but I don't see similar for editor calls. |
| 17:16 | <Michael Ficarra> | bakkot: it what? on the calendar? |
| 17:16 | <bakkot> | Michael Ficarra: y |
| 17:16 | <bakkot> | if you go to the events for plenary meetings |
| 17:16 | <bakkot> | jmdyck: I'll DM you the link for the call; it's stable and is at 2:30-3:30 PST every Wednesday except weeks when there is plenary |
| 17:17 | <Michael Ficarra> | we should talk to the chairs about making sure the events calendar can be shared publicly |
| 17:18 | <bakkot> | I guess I should say PT rather than PST. Or America/Los_Angeles to be more precise |
| 17:21 | <ljharb> | hm, yeah i'm not sure if it's meant to be broadly public or not, but either way jmdyck should be able to see it |
| 17:24 | <jmdyck> | okay, i'll try to join this week. |
| 17:24 | <jmdyck> | do you normally get non-editor attendees? |
| 17:27 | <Michael Ficarra> | sometimes champions drop by for editorial feedback on stuff they're working on |
| 17:27 | <Michael Ficarra> | we also had the KAIST researchers first present to the editor group |
| 17:34 | <bakkot> | a majority of meetings it's me, michael, shu, jordan, and no others |
| 17:35 | <Michael Ficarra> | I figured it was just a lack of interest typically, but now I'm thinking the lack of discoverability might've had something to do with it |
| 17:35 | <Michael Ficarra> | like I always assumed jmdyck just didn't want to attend the call |