| 05:31 | <ljharb> | ok so the intrinsic notation stuff. %Array.prototype.forEach%, for example, is straightforward. how does %Map.prototype.size% work, based on the current text? is it basically unspecified? |
| 05:37 | <ljharb> | if, as i assume, it's really only accounting for data properties, then how could we make it handle getters (and setters, not that we have any)? same question about %Map.prototype[@@iterator]% which i don't think the current text handles |
| 05:39 | <ljharb> | bakkot: separately, why is https://unpkg.com/browse/ecmarkup@10.0.2/js/ecmarkup.js a 0-byte file shipped with the package? |
| 05:44 | <ljharb> | bakkot also separately, it seems like ecmarkup --verbose --load-biblio=@tc39/ecma262-biblio spec.emu index.html --strict isn't autolinking an AO like StringIndexOf. is there something i'm missing? |
| 07:11 | <bakkot> | ljharb: 'cause I haven't bothered removing it I guess |
| 07:11 | <bakkot> | it's been empty forever: https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/blob/323a97e0d688358bc2068b2424e355050a595214/js/ecmarkup.js |
| 14:49 | <ljharb> | lol k, weird |
| 17:52 | <ljharb> | it seems to me that 402 might be invalid, post 262 completion reform, unless it also does a completion reform update, since it relied on 262s implicit completion behavior. does that seem right? |
| 17:57 | <bakkot> | yup but there are many similar things |
| 17:57 | <bakkot> | I'll probably make a PR sometime soonish |
| 21:53 | <ljharb> | 402 needs to cut their 2022 asap also |
| 21:53 | <ljharb> | so if those changes really should go into both specs' 2022, then "soonish" might need to be, like, in the next day or two |
| 21:54 | <bakkot> | I wasn't gonna worry about it tbh |
| 21:54 | <bakkot> | 402 is readable as-is even though it's technically "wrong" |
| 21:57 | <ljharb> | alrighty |
| 21:57 | <ljharb> | any thoughts about my intrinsic notation question above? |
| 21:57 | <bakkot> | I think it's basically unspecified, yes |
| 22:01 | <ljharb> | any ideas how we could specify it? (or how it would be specified, it's not important whether it goes into the spec now, but i need it for the get intrinsic proposal) |
| 22:02 | <bakkot> | we could just say that when the named property is an accessor the % notation expands to a Record { [[Getter]], [[Setter}} } |
| 22:09 | <jmdyck> | So %Map.prototype.size%.[[Getter]] ? |
| 22:11 | <bakkot> | yup |
| 22:12 | <jmdyck> | In ecmaspeak, I use %Map.prototype.size:get% |
| 22:14 | <jmdyck> | and %Map.prototype[@@iterator]%, for the other example |
| 22:41 | <ljharb> | ooh, i like that, for getters/setters, that's great |
| 22:43 | <ljharb> | i'm not sure how to actually word it for symbols, but i imagine anything that allows %some.object.chain[@@someWellKnownSymbolName]% to work would be fine |