| 19:04 | <Michael Ficarra> | jmdyck shu ljharb: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2547 should be ready for (hopefully final) review now |
| 19:05 | <Michael Ficarra> | we incorporated the changes discussed in the last editor call |
| 19:05 | <jmdyck> | looking at it now, got one small thing. |
| 19:06 | <bakkot> | in particular we are now using either to disambiguate or and we are using a normal completion containing X or an abrupt completion rather than a Completion Record normally containing |
| 19:16 | <jmdyck> | oh, i don't have that last commit yet. |
| 19:30 | <ljharb> | it seems like it still has the phrase "normally"; but let me load the full diff to be sure |
| 19:32 | <Michael Ficarra> | ah yes, I need to remove the definition we added for "normally containing" |
| 19:32 | <Michael Ficarra> | there's also a use in one of the host ops, I'll address it |
| 19:33 | <ljharb> | BigInt::exponentiate and friends still have it |
| 19:34 | <Michael Ficarra> | thanks, addressing those too |
| 19:34 | <ljharb> | also, the comment thread on package.json says there should be a major ecmarkup bump included in the PR as well, is that still the case? |
| 19:35 | <ljharb> | (scrolling through this megadiff is lagging my 500-open-tab browser, i blame the diff) |
| 19:36 | <Michael Ficarra> | there will be, but we can do reviews before that ecmarkup release is made |
| 19:36 | <bakkot> | yeah we've been iterating on it on https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/tree/typecheck |
| 19:36 | <bakkot> | which I haven't even opened a PR for because it needs a fair bit of cleanup |
| 19:36 | <Michael Ficarra> | it is going to take Kevin a little bit to add tests for all the features we added to ecmarkup |
| 19:36 | <bakkot> | mostly around making the errors actually useful and adding tests |
| 19:37 | <ljharb> | kk |
| 19:50 | <Michael Ficarra> | ljharb: done |
| 19:59 | <ljharb> | I’ll have a review submitted in an hour or so |
| 20:00 | <bakkot> | Michael Ficarra: don't forget we started adding the little abrupt indicator and you were going to make it look better maybe |
| 20:01 | <Michael Ficarra> | bakkot: I thought we were holding that until a follow-up |
| 20:09 | <bakkot> | oh maybe |
| 20:09 | <bakkot> | we definitely did start doing it |
| 20:09 | <bakkot> | so I'll need to ensure it's not enabled in the ecmarkup branch we actually cut |
| 21:58 | <ljharb> | the extra explicit "return unused"s are a lot of noise :-/ |
| 23:12 | <bakkot> | yeah personally I think we should get rid of them, but we'd need to give a definition, as in https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2397 |
| 23:12 | <bakkot> | seems like that's a fine followup |
| 23:37 | <ljharb> | totes |