| 19:52 | <rkirsling> | shu: it obviously means that it's a "tasty" proposal |
| 20:02 | <rkirsling> | also I guess we wouldn't want to go with literal temperature indication like 🥶 🥵 |
| 21:45 | <bradleymeck> | i dislike how complex grammar parameters can be when something seems relatively simple to explain |
| 21:54 | <TabAtkins> | My policy is, whenever the grammar seems too complex, just invent new grammar forms that make it easier. |
| 21:55 | <TabAtkins> | *make it LOOK easier |
| 21:55 | <TabAtkins> | rkirsling: The cold one seems good, the "thirsty for ****" one is not so good |
| 21:56 | <bradleymeck> | do all our semantics have unique productions if they are under a grammar parameter? I'm trying to add `export { StringLiteral as StringLiteral } from StringLiteral` basically and... it seems we need to add a `[+From]` parameter to ExportSpecifier when taking that route since you can't create a local reference to a binding via a string name so you can only have LHS be a string when there is no `from` clause |
| 21:56 | <bradleymeck> | but making a unique production for just that case seems... a bit much? |
| 21:57 | <rkirsling> | TabAtkins: I mean even without the misinterpretable realization of that emoji, "sweating due to heat" would still be very different from +1 |
| 21:58 | <TabAtkins> | icy and shaes |
| 21:58 | <TabAtkins> | shades |
| 21:58 | <rkirsling> | 😎 would work, yeah |
| 21:59 | <drousso> | why not just ❄️ and 🔥? |
| 21:59 | <rkirsling> | even better probably |
| 22:00 | <rkirsling> | or well maybe 🧊 so that it's not a snowflake? hmm |
| 22:00 | <rkirsling> | nah, too non-descript |
| 22:14 | <bradleymeck> | ' |
| 22:20 | <Bakkot> | bradleymeck: not sure what "do all our semantics have unique productions if they are under a grammar parameter" means |
| 22:21 | <Bakkot> | your commit seems like a reasonable approach (once you fix the issues the linter is complaining about) |