| 00:46 | <rkirsling> | wow, weeding through CLDR discrepancies is the worst |
| 00:47 | <rkirsling> | I really hate that we have so many version-dependent tests |
| 00:48 | <rkirsling> | "make sure this JS construct initialized with en-US locale absolutely does this thing that didn't work until ICU 65" |
| 00:51 | <rkirsling> | (we as in test262, for clarity) |
| 15:43 | <spenguin> | ljharb: I have an extremely dumb question, but I keep getting confused by reading https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-fields-in-in. If you can't refer to a private field outside of that class, wouldn't an instanceof check suffice to tell you if the private field existed? |
| 15:44 | <spenguin> | or can private fields (and/or methods) be created dynamically? |
| 15:44 | <spenguin> | (I thought that they had to be included in the class body) |
| 15:52 | <spenguin> | can you access a private field on an instance of another class if that class has a private field with the same name as one of yours? |
| 16:16 | <devsnek> | spenguin: instanceof is not strong enough |
| 16:16 | <devsnek> | Object.create(X.prototype) is an instanceof X but it doesn't have X's private fields |
| 16:23 | <spenguin> | oh! duh. Thanks! |
| 16:27 | <spenguin> | that clears up all of my confusion. |