| 02:13 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: do you know if it's intentional that Shepherd doesn't index the ECMAScript spec? |
| 02:14 | <TabAtkins> | Yes it is |
| 02:16 | <MikeSmith> | ah ok |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: what are the criteria for which set of specs Shepherd does index? |
| 02:18 | <TabAtkins> | I'd like to include them, but I need to more their dfn usage to see what types should be used, and have them mark themselves up appropriately. |
| 02:18 | <TabAtkins> | *more=model |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | I see |
| 05:09 | <TimothyGu> | Domenic: I hate to mention this, but it really seems like the best option for both users and spec authors is to introduce a willful violation of JS that says that IsArray must return true for ObservableArrays. Is that route really an impossibility? |
| 05:10 | <Domenic> | TimothyGu: I think the best route is to just use a proxy. It solves some other issues too. |
| 05:11 | <TimothyGu> | It sounds like a lot of work just to spec it, and even with a proxy-based setup I feel like implementations would probably just approximate it by hacking IsArray… |
| 05:12 | <Domenic> | Spec's almost done. Happy to leave implementations to the implementers, but they'd also need to be sure that .constructor is Array, .__proto__ is Array.prototype, etc. |