| 14:21 | <jackworks> | https://github.com/caridy/secure-javascript-environment/issues/76 |
| 14:21 | <jackworks> | magic behavior of `document.all` is poising sandboxes 🤣 |
| 20:49 | <devsnek> | did people generally agree that normal completions should be a thing |
| 20:54 | <Bakkot> | ... as opposed to? |
| 20:55 | <Bakkot> | mixing abrupt completions with values of non-completion types? |
| 20:55 | <devsnek> | yeah |
| 20:55 | <Bakkot> | I dunno about people generally but that is definitely the opinion of a majority of the current editor group |
| 20:55 | <devsnek> | that normal completion should be a thing you mean |
| 20:55 | <Bakkot> | yeah |
| 20:56 | <ljharb> | yes |
| 20:56 | <devsnek> | also, you had an issue open saying you were going to tidy up completions |
| 20:56 | <Bakkot> | yup, still planning to |
| 20:56 | <devsnek> | ok |
| 20:56 | <devsnek> | i was trying to refactor completions in engine262 and everything exploded |
| 20:57 | <ljharb> | completion values will at some point be appropriately socially distanced from regular values |
| 20:57 | <devsnek> | apparently at some point in the last two years i added an escape hatch where Completion(language value) returns that language value |
| 22:37 | <rkirsling> | so https://github.com/michaelficarra/proposal-first-class-protocols/issues/3 explains why we would avoid using `interface` for a first-class version of what the spec calls a "protocol", but |
| 22:38 | <rkirsling> | how did it come to be that it's, e.g., the "iterator protocol" and not the "iterator interface"? |
| 22:39 | <rkirsling> | (I'm guessing it's because there was already this "MOP" notion?) |