| 00:00 | <shu> | either one reads fine to me |
| 01:31 | <jmdyck> | Michael Ficarra: re see https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-implicit-normal-completion saying it's already "clearly marked": yes, but only when returning from an algorithm. I'm talking about otherwise. |
| 01:38 | <jmdyck> | So... I wasn't proposing to change "the result of evaluating" to "Evaluation", but now I'm wondering if I should. |
| 01:39 | <jmdyck> | @bakkot, earlier you said you didn't want a conventional invocation form for Evaluation |
| 02:03 | <bakkot> | that is a thing I said, yup |
| 02:03 | <bakkot> | I mean I am not strongly opposed if michael and shu both think it's better |
| 02:04 | <bakkot> | I just don't like change |
| 02:04 | <jmdyck> | @shu seemed fine either way |
| 15:29 | <shu> | indeed i am |
| 16:48 | <Michael Ficarra> | my general philosophy is to reduce special forms as much as possible without harming readability, so I'm all for it |
| 16:54 | <Michael Ficarra> | without that readability constraint, we could just express the whole thing in SKI calculus 😍 |
| 17:15 | <shu> | god forbid you want people to read the thing you write |
| 19:33 | <bakkot> | we can talk about it at the editor call maybe |