| 10:09 | <littledan> | (I think multiple implementations is still a meaningful bar, even if there is support from others--it's the standard we use in TC39, after all) |
| 10:10 | <littledan> | devsnek: I disagree that iterating through rules means that the feature is suspect. These all follow by logical consequence, I think |
| 10:11 | <littledan> | I don't think this would be a lot of stuff to learn in practice |
| 18:04 | <bradleymeck> | i think i asked last time but are we no longer hosting the frameworks outreach calls? |
| 18:05 | <ljharb> | bradleymeck: it's happening right now |
| 18:06 | <ljharb> | it's on the TC39 calendar |
| 20:16 | <ljharb> | Bakkot: on 2132, do you think the commits need to stay separate, or is squashing fine? |
| 20:22 | <ljharb> | actually nvm, i can figure that out |
| 20:39 | <Bakkot> | rkirsling https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2164 needs a rebase; want to take care of it, or shall I? |
| 20:39 | <Bakkot> | it's probably mostly https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2007 which conflicts |
| 20:42 | <rkirsling> | happy to do so; I'll ask if something's unclear |
| 20:51 | <rkirsling> | Bakkot: done |