| 21:32 | <jmdyck> | Is there a meeting now? |
| 21:41 | <jmdyck> | guess not. |
| 21:41 | <ljharb> | i forgot to join 10m ago, but afaik there's supposed to be |
| 21:45 | <shu> | i thought we cancelled because michael was out |
| 21:45 | <shu> | that's why we did the slides last meeting |
| 21:47 | <jmdyck> | ok |
| 21:48 | <jmdyck> | so is next week's cancelled too? |
| 21:49 | <shu> | is Michael Ficarra also out next next week? i forget |
| 21:49 | <shu> | if only one of us is in, then we should consider it cancelled |
| 21:55 | <ljharb> | i certainly won't be there next week, and plenary week's cancelled already |
| 21:57 | <bakkot> | I'll be in, I'm back to work on Tuesday |
| 22:05 | <Michael Ficarra> | I'll be back next week |
| 22:09 | <shu> | i had a cursed realization the other day while working on some bugs |
| 22:09 | <shu> | the spec pretends stack overflows are impossible, so our !s and non-completion value returning AOs are correct only with that assumption |
| 22:09 | <shu> | the unfortunate state of the world is that stack overflow RangeErrors are both possible and are catchable by user code, lol |
| 22:13 | <bakkot> | yup!! |
| 22:14 | <bakkot> | would be nice to fix that, someday; I want a [allocates] attribute for AOs |
| 22:14 | <bakkot> | but like... not actually |
| 22:15 | <shu> | the most surprising one of that is Await |
| 22:30 | <bakkot> | await is fallibe anyway because the fast path in Promise.resolve does a user-hookable lookup |
| 22:31 | <shu> | indeed |
| 22:31 | <shu> | but PerformPromiseThen can stack overflow! |
| 22:32 | <bakkot> | (though I think we might actually be able to fix that: right now it's IsPromise(p) && p.constructor === %Promise% but it should be IsPromise(p) && GetPrototypeOf(p) === %Promise.prototype%; the first check rules out proxies which makes the second check unobservable. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-faster-promise-adoption/issues/1 ) |
| 22:33 | <bakkot> | (I feel like this is probably web-compat but maybe you'd want a use counter first?) |