| 06:52 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: if https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5882 looks okay to you we can merge that and then rebase the other PR and land that too |
| 06:54 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: OK |
| 06:54 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: and thanks yeah, I had been planning to deal with that one case after merging this one first then rebasing |
| 06:54 | <MikeSmith> | and thanks also for catching and fixing the ID cases; I should have considered that |
| 06:58 | <annevk> | JakeA: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/887 |
| 06:59 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: are you rebasing? I'm happy to do it |
| 06:59 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I’m rebasing it now |
| 06:59 | <annevk> | I see :-) |
| 07:04 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: OK, https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5881 is all green, if you could go ahead and push the button |
| 10:40 | <annevk> | andreubotella: so decode blocking in parallel doesn't so bad to me, but I'll grant you that it's not an ideal setup |
| 10:40 | <annevk> | seem so* |
| 10:53 | <andreubotella> | annevk: right, since at that point the behavior of the different stages isn't observable from the main thread |
| 10:55 | <andreubotella> | but I don't think it hurts to make the hooks useful concurrently |
| 11:15 | <annevk> | andreubotella: I guess for that you need some kind of incremental hook that you push a couple of items at a time |
| 11:16 | <andreubotella> | yeah, that'd be best |
| 11:16 | <andreubotella> | but having decode optionally take an output I/O queue would do it for now |
| 11:33 | <annevk> | andreubotella: how would that work though? That queue would travel across parallel boundaries magically? |
| 11:34 | <annevk> | Might not be too bad |
| 11:40 | <andreubotella> | I was thinking something like: on the event loop, the first task from the networking task source creates the parser and the input byte stream, and passes the ibs to a new thread |
| 11:40 | <andreubotella> | that thread then creates the input stream, passes the is to a new thread that runs the tokenizer, and itself runs the decode algorithm |
| 11:42 | <andreubotella> | decode optionally takes an output I/O queue (otherwise it creates it), and pushes end-of-queue to it after it's done |
| 11:43 | <annevk> | So yeah, you pass a queue across threads; might be good enough |
| 14:16 | <jgraham> | It is somewhat unclear in the infra standard what happens if you get a value from a map with a key that's not in the map |
| 14:18 | <annevk> | jgraham: you have to "exists" check first |
| 14:19 | <jgraham> | That is also unclear (and pretty strange) |
| 14:22 | <jgraham> | It seems to be mentioned for using the index notation that the value existing is assumed to be a precondition |
| 14:22 | <jgraham> | But not for the actual accessor algorithm |
| 14:23 | <andreubotella> | The "out of bounds" language for that precondition seems copied from the definition for list, and could be reworded with reference to keys in the map's entries. |
| 14:24 | <annevk> | jgraham: third paragraph of (including note) of https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#maps seems pretty clear? |
| 14:24 | <annevk> | Oh sigh, key not index |
| 14:24 | <jgraham> | That's what I mean by "it seems to be mentioned for index notation" |
| 14:25 | <jgraham> | It isn't obvious to me that anything there applies if I "call" 'get the value of an entry' directly |
| 14:26 | <annevk> | I don't think we support map[1] though so maybe that should just be reworded |
| 14:26 | <annevk> | s/The index cannot be out-of-bounds, except when used with exists./The key has to exist./? |
| 14:27 | <annevk> | Happy to PR that if that would help |
| 14:28 | <jgraham> | To get the value of an entry |
| 14:29 | <jgraham> | in an ordered map given a key, return the value of the entry whose key is the given key. It is a spec error to call this with a key that does not exist; when that is not statically known specs must first ensure that the map contains key. |
| 14:30 | <jgraham> | Or something |
| 14:31 | <annevk> | I prefer my clarification, but we should add an example as this is a common pattern |
| 14:31 | <jgraham> | Your clarification still give the impression it's talking about the indexing syntax. |
| 14:32 | <annevk> | Ah yeah, we should also add an assert to the get thing |
| 14:51 | <jgraham> | |
| 16:52 | <annevk> | Domenic: it seems https://jsdom.github.io/whatwg-url/ broke down somehow |
| 16:54 | <Domenic> | annevk: https://github.com/jsdom/whatwg-url/issues/168 |
| 16:55 | <annevk> | Oh yeah, it still works in Chrome, but no other browser |
| 16:55 | <annevk> | That makes it kinda useless though |
| 16:56 | <annevk> | Oh, it's IDL bindings code? |
| 16:57 | <annevk> | omg https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/678 |
| 16:58 | annevk | steps away from the computer |
| 17:00 | <Domenic> | annevk: it's my JS-implemented IDL bindings code. webidl2js (which underlies whatwg-url which underlies live-url-viewer) implements [AllowShared] in a way that depends on a SAB global existing at startup time. |
| 17:01 | <Domenic> | I don't think 678 is relevant to this particular issue, but it is indeed scary... I'm surprised you haven't seen it before. |
| 17:01 | <annevk> | I have |
| 17:01 | <annevk> | I keep forgetting about it and then it's there again |
| 17:02 | <Domenic> | Heh yes |
| 17:02 | <Domenic> | Maybe Shu wants to fix it. He's been good about that sort of thing. |
| 17:03 | <annevk> | Very true |
| 17:12 | <Domenic> | Pushed a fix for live URL viewer to master; it should deploy momentarily. Although I wasn't able to test Safari so if you have that, let me know. |
| 17:12 | <Domenic> | One day I will be allowed back into the office to get my testing Mac... |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | In Safari I get "ReferenceError: Can't find variable: SharedArrayBuffer" |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | Oh, momentarily |
| 17:15 | <Domenic> | Hmm Travis says it's deployed but it is not... |
| 17:15 | <Domenic> | OK, now it is... caching, maybe |
| 17:17 | <annevk> | It seems to work, though Safari seemingly ignores about:blank in base |
| 17:17 | <annevk> | But no more console errors |
| 17:17 | <annevk> | I would have expected new WebAssembly.Memory to throw |
| 17:18 | <annevk> | Ah, I guess it ignores the shared member entirely |
| 17:26 | <shu> | annevk: Domenic: i'll queue it up... still need to finish up the incumbents thing. i've been holding off prodding the MDN article progress given the layoffs |