| 00:44 | <Bakkot> | devsnek none of them seem particularly unclear to me? |
| 00:44 | <Bakkot> | do you have a concrete example? |
| 00:46 | <devsnek> | Bakkot: the ones with the with statement seem okay now that I read them again since they explicitly mention the execution context |
| 00:46 | <devsnek> | the other two occurances seem kind of undefined though |
| 00:48 | <Bakkot> | hm |
| 00:49 | <Bakkot> | the one in the definition of ECMAScript Function Objects is using it to talk about the concept, not a concrete thing in the specification |
| 00:49 | <Bakkot> | like, that's what a closure is: it is some code closed over a lexical environment |
| 00:50 | <devsnek> | 🤷 |
| 00:50 | <Bakkot> | the one which is "NOTE: Only a single lexical environment is needed for the parameters and top-level vars." seems pretty clear to me: if you go down that branch you end up with one LexicalEnvironment, by contrast to the other branch, where you end up with two |
| 19:31 | <ljharb> | is there any reason why RegExp.prototype is `/(?:)/` rather than `/|/`? both seem like they're equivalent |
| 19:35 | <bradleymeck> | | would require an actual alternation inside of it right? |
| 19:47 | <rkirsling> | it is an alternation but it's a needless one |
| 19:48 | <rkirsling> | `/|/` is shorter to type but equivalent to `/(?:)|(?:)/` so it'd be redundant in that sense |
| 20:04 | <ljharb> | right |
| 20:04 | <ljharb> | but since it's shorter :-p |
| 20:51 | <Bakkot> | I don't think shorter is the goal, necessarily |
| 20:51 | <devsnek> | technically you could just have `//` |
| 20:53 | <ljharb> | devsnek: that's a comment |
| 20:54 | <devsnek> | or an empty regex |
| 20:58 | <Bakkot> | not in JS! :P |
| 20:58 | <Bakkot> | new RegExp("").toString() === '/(?:)/' |
| 21:15 | <rkirsling> | "undeniable" is a weird word |
| 21:15 | <rkirsling> | (I mean our meaning, not the word in general) |