2022-01-06 [17:03:28.0691] Michael Ficarra: bakkot https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/400, feedback on styling welcome [09:36:56.0314] i've updated the proposals repo so the callable class constructors link is now to a SHA. any objections to me deleting it in a Meta commit i push directly to the 262 repo? [09:42:01.0037] (the other doc in there, i'm going to PR into the notes repo; after which we can delete it from 262 as well) [09:54:40.0820] wfm I guess but I'd just do a PR [09:58:53.0478] sure, np, in that case i'll wait til https://github.com/tc39/notes/pull/176 lands and then i'll do a PR removing both [10:35:56.0991] shu: you have any more you want to do with https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2548, or should I stamp it as ready-to-merge? [11:02:37.0322] nope, nothing more on my end now that the shortcut dialog thing is there 2022-01-07 [08:38:34.0680] FYI i've invited richard gibson to the next editor's call. he'd like to discuss https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/1604#issuecomment-973551998, which i had neglected to bring up 2022-01-11 [08:25:50.0573] ljharb: what do you think about adding a bot that congratulates somebody when their first contribution to ecma262 gets merged? [08:26:26.0841] seems a bit fluffy and rarely needed, but sure, couldn't hurt [08:26:32.0032] what bot? [08:26:49.0047] I'll see if I can find one, surely it already exists [08:26:51.0739] * seems a bit fluffy and rarely needed, but sure, couldn't hurt [08:27:07.0903] probot probably has something, not that i particularly love probot, but at least it's reliable [08:27:36.0849] https://github.com/behaviorbot/first-pr-merge [08:32:28.0397] I'd say something like "Congratulations on making your first contribution to ECMA-262! All contributions, no matter the size, are greatly appreciated. We look forward to you contributing again." [09:49:15.0739] seems fine 2022-01-13 [20:37:58.0516] ljharb: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2468/files still had todos in the source [20:38:03.0054] maybe should clean up [20:48:00.0530] I found some other stuff too. I'll post a PR. [20:49:03.0566] oh, whoops [20:58:05.0721] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2621 [21:06:46.0150] stamped [21:07:02.0726] I figure this does not need review by multiple editors [11:20:58.0018] i thought the TODOs were intentional to be tackled later? [11:21:11.0173] that is, we don't have a policy to not land TODOs, right? [11:36:27.0348] uhhhh I think we do yes [11:36:31.0930] or ought to [11:36:34.0338] it hasn't come up [11:44:30.0998] i think historically TODOs are issues, not comments [11:44:33.0438] * i think historically TODOs are issues, not comments [13:55:29.0012] huh, okay [13:55:35.0635] i'm used to having TODOs in all codebases i've worked in 2022-01-14 [18:57:31.0901] sure, but the spec isn’t a codebase :-p [09:01:46.0951] well, it's maintained like one, no? [09:02:10.0929] well, to an extent, not like we have tests 2022-01-15 [09:16:48.0203] i mean sure, but whenever i've tried to treat it more like one, particularly around AOs, the pushback i've gotten is "this isn't code" [09:18:13.0370] I think the trend over many years has been to treat it more like code. [09:18:22.0044] that is a good trend [09:18:49.0701] altho since most people read the rendered spec before they're editing, TODO comments aren't likely to be noticed [09:19:11.0632] I'm wondering what AO-related changes got pushback? [09:21:10.0809] (Treating the spec like code is the whole idea behind my ecmaspeak project. [09:22:17.0951] And not just the algorithms, but Early Error rules, tables, even some

-prose.) [09:42:44.0774] hm, i don't recall specifically 2022-01-19 [15:26:26.0227] ljharb: productive day, we've got 8 ready to merge for you when you've got a chance: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3A%22ready+to+merge%22+sort%3Aupdated-desc [15:26:54.0893] Awesome, I’ll get to those later tonight 2022-01-20 [20:18:21.0391] Michael Ficarra: bakkot forgot to bring this up. any more thoughts on https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/1604#issuecomment-1011552324? [11:17:31.0357] I'm still okay with that approach 2022-01-21 [16:32:20.0221] bakkot: you're also okay with it? will let them know the editors are okay with the approach if so [16:56:01.0923] shu: sgtm 2022-01-24 [09:44:31.0245] shu: do you want to run the slides for this presentation so you can give the can-call-user-code demo, or do you want me to switch over to you for the demo, or do you want me to run the demo? [10:04:45.0653] my MBA dies when sharing the screen so i'd be happy if you do the demo [10:06:32.0232] √ [10:07:28.0182] could you also do another call for issue filing if folks notice false positives/negatives? [10:07:53.0513] you haven't swapped out that MBA yet? [10:08:12.0519] ain't my fault [10:08:17.0902] global supply chain crunch [10:08:31.0512] waiting for that M1 replacement, whenever google gets them, probably in 2025 [10:10:58.0665] I gave up on that and took what I could get [10:12:51.0255] i could take my chromebook home from the office and use two laptops, i suppose [10:15:13.0324] do you not own other laptops [10:15:25.0742] or other computers [10:15:29.0828] I used to do this meeting on my personal computer sometimes [10:15:40.0255] before it became dedicated notes bot [10:16:07.0983] i do not own other computers or laptops [10:16:27.0910] i have an ipad i guess [10:16:31.0487] huh [10:16:37.0470] i own like [10:16:39.0341] six. [10:16:48.0676] plus a work laptop [10:16:59.0807] i have unburdened myself from technological desire [10:22:38.0388] same, shu [10:22:48.0309] I do not want additional computers in my life [13:24:33.0391] did we miss this when triaging? [13:27:27.0806] guess so [13:27:30.0342] it did not say "For stage 3" at the time 2022-01-26 [10:43:24.0558] wait is this the actual tool that waldemar uses?? [10:44:48.0777] the last time I saw it, waldemar's tool was some (impenetrable, to me) Lisp code [10:46:38.0283] yeah this may more be a doc from the output of his tool, rather than his tool itself [10:48:55.0388] It was hosted/archived at mozilla, I think, and at some point vanished from the web. [10:49:41.0614] i often wish google would index archive.org, so i could google search across time [10:51:59.0424] archive.org doesn't have a good copy of it [10:55:03.0928] http://web.archive.org/web/20141214140035/http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js2/semantics/ *looks* like a good copy, but the subdir links don't work. [10:55:34.0601] (And even if they did, it would be a pretty old copy, of course.) [11:02:30.0268] Re RegExp chapter, I've got some PRs in the wings. I'm mainly waiting for 1713 to land. [11:02:45.0600] sweet 2022-01-29 [15:19:57.0402] shu: I note that there's some things which look like calls and are hence marked as "user code" despite being in notes or whatever, like in the note at the top of https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/ordinary-and-exotic-objects-behaviours.html#sec-array-exotic-objects. should those be excluded from the analysis? [15:21:01.0296] I ask mostly because michael and I are doing an analysis which definitely should only be considering calls which are in actual algorithm steps, so either I need to tweak the existing analysis, which would prevent `UC` from showing up in those cases, or I need to branch based on which analysis is being performed [15:21:25.0551] the latter is easy to do if you want to preserve these annotations, but it actually does seem kind of weird to have them [15:21:45.0962] you can get the full list of places this happens by running ``` function hasAlgParent(e) { if (e == null) return false; if (e.tagName === 'EMU-ALG') return true; return hasAlgParent(e.parentNode); } [...document.querySelectorAll('.e-user-code')].filter(a => !hasAlgParent(a)) ``` in the console 2022-01-31 [09:02:11.0832] agreed that it is weird to have UC annotations in NOTEs [09:02:40.0639] let's make the analyses uniform by preventing propagation through NOTEs