2024-06-01 [00:08:55.0128] we should fix this https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/3136 [00:09:10.0775] probably by reverting the change to those iterators [00:09:44.0896] Michael Ficarra: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2600 is also waiting on yoru review [00:09:48.0050] * Michael Ficarra: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2600 is also waiting on your review 2024-06-03 [09:19:13.0320] we have an AO called IsIntegralNumber. in the spirit of "IsPropertyKey" -> "is a property key", we should maybe replace its uses with "is an integral Number"? we already use the latter form in some places. [09:19:31.0542] https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/abstract-operations.html#sec-isintegralnumber [09:20:19.0303] also our definition of "integral number" is "When the term integral Number is used in this specification, it refers to a Number value whose mathematical value is in the set of integers." which strictly speaking is ill-defined because not all Number values have mathematical values. should probably be "refers to a _finite_ Number value [...]" [13:43:41.0306] (Heh, I had "IsIntegralNumber" -> "is an integral Number" on my todo list.) 2024-06-05 [23:14:43.0290] seems like `reads-from` isn't marked as an AO anymore, but `reads-bytes-from` still is? [00:19:59.0998] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3321#discussion_r1603777017 [10:09:13.0379] ah thanks [11:53:01.0637] Michael Ficarra: why did you mark https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3343 ready to merge without asking if i'd defer review? [11:56:19.0734] shu: we do 2/3 for insignificant editorial things like this [11:59:24.0914] yes, as a possibility but i thought we usually ask [12:12:55.0829] I'm fine with always asking if that's what you want, but that's not what we had previously agreed to [12:13:27.0897] my preference is I don't get bothered by small things like this when the other 2/3 is in agreement [12:13:59.0595] these things are always easily reverted/changed as well, so I really have no fear about that [12:18:45.0389] fair enough [14:33:02.0168] bakkot: is the audio in this room messed up or do have volume down [14:33:12.0781] * bakkot: is the audio in this room messed up or do you have volume down 2024-06-06 [17:17:28.0303] shu: "desiderable" *is* a word, but the OED says it's obsolete 2024-06-07 [11:36:43.0265] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3348 2024-06-11 [00:39:51.0788] nice to see 402 aligning with 262 editorial conventions 2024-06-12 [15:18:33.0272] shu: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2683 has just been waiting on a second implementation, and review from Michael Ficarra. am I correct that Chrome has now shipped it? Safari did a while ago 2024-06-13 [17:46:42.0615] bakkot: i don't remember fixing it, but given that https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3472 is merged and those are not marked as fails in `test262.status`, we must've fixed it and shipped it [17:46:54.0341] so yes, let's go with Chrome has shipped [18:10:30.0663] aha https://issues.chromium.org/issues/42202717 claims shipped in 2022 so I guess it was just waiting for Michael Ficarra's review [18:10:34.0641] should... probably get to that [18:11:54.0217] yeah, zero recollection [18:12:03.0326] good thing there's a paper trail [18:37:00.0944] oh *i* fixed it, okay cool [18:37:33.0260] oh no, legendecas did and i reviewed 2024-06-14 [10:23:11.0879] next Wednesday is a federal holiday, shall we cancel or do people want to reschedule? [10:24:35.0824] Should probably reschedule. any time Tuesday works for me [10:25:59.0343] tuesday afternoon i'm booked 2-4pm [10:26:02.0217] thurs afternoon is free currently [10:34:14.0212] Thursday afternoon works for me too. Michael Ficarra ? (he's presumably still on europe time this week though) [10:34:56.0675] I can do any time Thursday afternoon [10:37:27.0481] moved to thurs 2024-06-15 [17:11:21.0496] paged.js may have finally fixed their issues: https://github.com/pagedjs/pagedjs/pull/196 [17:11:36.0665] (ignore the issue title, it's a miscellaneous bugfix PR) [17:40:50.0803] funny how they took until after Aki switched off onto a paid alternative 2024-06-20 [14:33:03.0693] shu: editor call? 2024-06-24 [07:11:33.0155] Ashley did end up opening the naming issue: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-joint-iteration/issues/27 2024-06-26 [09:25:10.0125] TIL we have Annex B replacements that replace steps in *other Annex B replacements* [09:25:17.0264] what a mess [10:06:40.0631] patching is a robust technology [10:23:23.0289] oh yeah, that's fun. [10:32:46.0578] (this was related to https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3359 btw) [15:33:20.0982] it'd be nice to get another approval on https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2952 if anyone has time [15:33:28.0349] this is a fantastic PR and I'm excited to get it in [15:33:53.0793] also, maybe we should talk about our working model in Kevin's absence? [15:36:11.0640] re 2952, it's gone through some rebases, which might have introduced bugs, so I can check it from scratch, but I only want to do that once. [16:33:28.0749] > <@michaelficarra:matrix.org> also, maybe we should talk about our working model in Kevin's absence? what'd you have in mind? [16:38:57.0049] just that 2 approvals for a merge means 100% of editors in Kevin's absence instead of the usual 66% [16:39:03.0702] that might slow things down [16:50:06.0663] bakkot: how long is your leave? [16:50:30.0576] shu: nominally 12 weeks [16:51:07.0265] I expect I will resume using my computer fairly quickly, but who knows when I will have brainspace again [16:53:12.0547] okay, then my first blush proposal is that michael and i for those 3 months: - focus on scoped work instead of larger, precedent-setting work (e.g. burn down existing PRs) - exercise judgment in which things to defer, but prefer to defer as few as possible [16:54:31.0330] i can't think of anything urgent that _can't_ wait a few months. the only thing is editorial review for proposals [16:57:33.0554] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3346 is adjusted now as per the call [16:57:50.0161] the only case I'm not sure about, I've split into a separate commit: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3346/commits/a484768784a010209ccd73b9124a6e10c86ccd7e [16:58:13.0781] I think for `UTF16EncodeCodePoint`, dropping "the result of" is better [16:58:28.0571] but I'm okay either keeping that commit or dropping it 2024-06-27 [17:00:20.0565] you are also welcome to ping me while I am on leave; I will interpret all pings as implicitly having a disclaimer of "it is fine if this message is ignored" unless otherwise stated [10:33:19.0473] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1314 is rebased and ready for a merge label :-)