| 00:41 | <devsnek> | should we validate that the first argument is an object? https://gc.gy/52110662.png |
| 01:37 | <bradleymeck> | devsnek: https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-requireobjectcoercible ? |
| 01:37 | <devsnek> | bradleymeck: i mean like |
| 01:37 | <devsnek> | 'hello' would throw a type error |
| 01:37 | <devsnek> | Object('hello') wouldn't |
| 01:37 | <devsnek> | it doesn't matter that much |
| 01:37 | <bradleymeck> | that doesn't seem to match other stuff |
| 18:14 | <rkirsling> | oh interesting, wish I'd've known about https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields/pull/301 earlier |
| 18:14 | <rkirsling> | (not that it matters, just FOMO :P) |
| 18:15 | <devsnek> | isn't it 🆒 how every usage of object member has to be manually updated for private fields |
| 18:16 | <devsnek> | :( |
| 18:16 | <devsnek> | i don't know why that's an emoji |
| 18:17 | <rkirsling> | (lol I've always wondered why it's an emoji too...) |
| 18:17 | <devsnek> | i mean, i didn't intend for "cool" to be an emoji |
| 18:17 | <devsnek> | gboard ftw |
| 18:22 | <bradleymeck> | one day we will get a spec macro language |
| 18:23 | <bradleymeck> | i do like 402's extensions to the spec language |
| 18:23 | <devsnek> | we already have macros |
| 18:26 | <bradleymeck> | we have flags / abstract ops, but we don't have things like PER_ISOLATE_STRING_PROPERTIES(V) in Node that expands as a preprocessor sort of thing |
| 18:26 | <devsnek> | we have %NativeErrors% or whatever it is |
| 18:27 | <devsnek> | we have a list of the names and then the spec expands a template definition into intrinsics |
| 18:27 | <devsnek> | https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-nativeerror-constructors |
| 18:30 | <bradleymeck> | I am unclear how we could re-use that for something like %MemberOperations% :thinking: |
| 18:32 | <devsnek> | extract out Identifier and #PrivateIdentifier and use green text for the parts i guess? |
| 18:52 | <theskillwithin> | optional chaining ftw |
