| 00:38 | <jmdyck> | ok |
| 00:41 | <shu> | stamped |
| 20:22 | <Michael Ficarra> | @shu @bakkot thoughts on making Call's argument list parameter mandatory? https://github.com/tc39/proposal-upsert/pull/65 |
| 20:27 | <Michael Ficarra> | even though we do omit the arguments list a decent amount in 262, I think it's a bit of a footgun |
| 20:29 | <Michael Ficarra> | and an explicit empty list makes it a little harder for a reader to make the analogous mistake |
| 20:39 | <bakkot> | I am OK with it as long as you're volunteering to find and update every downstream spec again |
| 20:54 | <Michael Ficarra> | I think we should audit the AOs that have optional arguments at the moment and do all the ones we want to do in one go |
| 20:54 | <Michael Ficarra> | I don't want to do this for Call and then next month do it again for another one |
| 21:14 | <shu> | i don't think the implicit argument list is the cause of that footgun in upsert PR |
| 21:14 | <shu> | i'd prefer to not have to write empty lists personally |
| 21:15 | <shu> | like, in that PR, the footgun is that the author forgot the 2nd argument is the receiver, not the argument |
| 21:48 | <Michael Ficarra> | yeah but if it was mandatory, ecmarkup should be able to warn the author about it |
| 21:48 | <Michael Ficarra> | when it's optional, ecmarkup just lets it happen |
| 21:51 | <shu> | oh i see, okay |
| 21:51 | <shu> | then i am ok with it as well given what kevin said |