| 15:09 | <bakkot> | https://github.com/tc39/proposal-idl/issues/7 |
| 16:27 | <Michael Ficarra> | wow that seems really messy |
| 16:27 | <Michael Ficarra> | exceptions on top of exceptions |
| 16:27 | <Michael Ficarra> | when so many things have a special 1-off attribute, is it really helpful? |
| 16:55 | <bakkot> | I'm thinking there might be a middle ground, because most of the 1-off things are things we don't really want to do in the future |
| 16:55 | <bakkot> | so possibly we could just enumerate those ones and then do the rest with IDL |
| 17:37 | <shu> | that doc has 78 pages |
| 17:37 | <shu> | i'm not reading that |
| 17:40 | <shu> | i'd like someone to exec summary that for me |
| 17:41 | <bakkot> | the issue has descriptions of the parts which are most important |
| 17:51 | <shu> | that helps, thanks |
| 17:51 | <shu> | i'm a little skeptical of the "shared infra" parts |
| 17:51 | <shu> | you'd need to write a different bindgen for JS builtins |
| 22:37 | <bakkot> | looks like hte IPR check is broken again |
| 22:38 | <bakkot> | ah, I think because ron used his work email previously and that is no longer associated with his account |
| 22:38 | <bakkot> | we really gotta update the check to only apply to new commits |
| 23:02 | <ljharb> | yes, that's right. i pinged ron to re-add it to his github account. |
| 23:05 | <ljharb> | i added a commit that marks his spec commits as exceptions, so nothing's blocked |
| 23:06 | <Michael Ficarra> | he probably can't re-add it if he doesn't have access to that email account anymore |
| 23:06 | <ljharb> | i think you still can add it, you just can't verify it |
| 23:06 | <ljharb> | (but this is yet another reminder of why work emails should never be used as the primary address for open source work) |
| 23:07 | <Michael Ficarra> | lmao |
| 23:42 | <Michael Ficarra> | hmm in some of the ACs that get passed to GeneratorStart, we return ReturnCompletion(*undefined*), but we can also return NormalCompletion(~unused~) for the same behaviour |
| 23:43 | <Michael Ficarra> | is there a reason we would use a ReturnCompletion when the value is *undefined*? |
| 23:43 | <Michael Ficarra> | it seems like we should only use it when the value isn't *undefined* |