Pipeline Champions on 2022-01-27

12:40	<yulia>	you know what, i will write up my view on pipeline and also the intersection. i very much like jschoi and TabAtkins blog posts, i think they went a long way in furthering this discussion in an archivable way. thanks for the inspiration you two.
16:05	<shu>	i'd prefer to skip the overtime discussion today and read the results later
16:05	<shu>	but am willing to come if folks anticipate implementation questions?
17:00	<jschoi>	but am willing to come if folks anticipate implementation questions? I don’t anticipate any implementation questions; it’s mostly high-level.
17:09	<jschoi>	Well, other than the question of PFA syntax and throwaway-callback construction…
17:09	<jschoi>	…but I think you’ve already expressed your concerns about that clearly enough before, Shu; we’ll continue to keep them in mind in the disucssion.
18:01	<TabAtkins>	Reminder: dataflow meeting starting now
18:02	<sarahghp>	Reminder: Let me in!
18:02	<sarahghp>	😉
18:02	<sarahghp>	it's at the meet not the jitsi yes?
18:07	<ljharb>	the Meet, yes
18:08	<jschoi>	Wait, we’re in the Jitsi!
18:13	<ljharb>	HE Shi-Jun: fwiw i don't see any mention in the extensions proposal repo of other languages
19:01	<rbuckton>	TabAtkins: What would you think about an alternative to call-this that didn't use `::` to indicate a different argument order? I'm thinking about something like `fn(this: x, y)`.
19:01	<TabAtkins>	oh huh
19:01	<TabAtkins>	I guess i'm not too against
19:02	<sarahghp>	do we have data on "everyone is doing OO"?
19:02	<rbuckton>	Would be more cohesive with real named argument support, as opposed to object binding patterns.
19:28	<rbuckton>	It also would leave `::` for something else rather than locking it up for a very small capability.
19:30	<TabAtkins>	okay yeah i'm getting more in favor of the `this-tagging` syntax
19:30	<TabAtkins>	i forget, i know there was some syntax issues with using `:` in arg lists for named args, right?
19:32	<rbuckton>	Is there? `:` is only used in JS for: labeled statements case/default clauses property assignments in object literals/object patterns conditionals I'm not aware of any other conflicts offhand.
19:32	<TabAtkins>	I just know that `foo(argname: val)` has been discussed for JS in the past and been rejected; maybe just because options-args swallow enough of the use-case to not make it worthwhile
19:33	<rbuckton>	`keyword:` might be fine though?
19:34	<TabAtkins>	might be, like i said, i'm just vaguely remembering something and might be off on the details
19:40	<jschoi>	That’s a good idea, Ron.
19:40	<jschoi>	I will make the bikeshedding thread focused on the three choices:
19:41	<jschoi>	thisArg::ƒ(arg0)
19:41	<jschoi>	ƒ@.(thisArg, arg0)
19:41	<jschoi>	ƒ(thisArg: arg0)
20:02	<rbuckton>	jschoi: Not `thisArg`, as that would be a regular identifier. Specifically the keyword `this:`. So: ƒ(this: thisArg, arg0)
20:11	<rbuckton>	It would work for PFA too and avoids the bind-this overlap, i.e.: ƒ~(this: thisArg, ?) // NOTE: transposition is an approximation (does not capture eager evaluation of PFA) f~(?) // _ => f(_) o.f~(?) // note: binds `o` as `this` // _ => o.f(_) f~(this: ?) // _ => f(this: _) // _ => f.call(_) f~(this: x, ?) // note: binds `x` as `this` // _ => f(this: x, _) // _ => f.call(x, _) o.f~(this: ?) // _ => o.f(this: _) // _ => o.f.call(_) o.f~(this: x, ?) // note: binds `x` as `this` // _ => o.f(this: x, _) // _ => o.f.call(x, _) o.f~(this: ?, ...) // note: uncurry `this` // (_, ...args) => o.f.call(_, ...args)
20:20	<jschoi>	Why can’t the colon alone distinguish? `f(receiver:)`.
20:20	<jschoi>	Is it because it would preclude general named-argument syntax?
20:25	<rkirsling>	yeah I don't mind this new idea either. I'm sorry that my thoughts in the call were disorganized
20:25	<rkirsling>	I think I prefer options that keep the receiver inside the parens.
20:30	<jschoi>	Feel free to leave a new comment on https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bind-this/issues/10. Jordan just did.
21:51	<Justin Ridgewell>	HE Shi-Jun: fwiw i don't see any mention in the extensions proposal repo of other languages I’d also like to look at examples.
22:33	<Justin Ridgewell>	I just know that `foo(argname: val)` has been discussed for JS in the past and been rejected; maybe just because options-args swallow enough of the use-case to not make it worthwhile It's not apparent that the arg name is public, and renaming it now causes breaking changes.
22:48	<Justin Ridgewell>	When do we want to publish the adhoc notes?
22:48	<Justin Ridgewell>	After 2 weeks with the rest of the plenary notes?
23:07	<jschoi>	At the meeting, I said I’d do it about two days from now, but with the plenary notes makes sense too I guess.
23:14	<Justin Ridgewell>	I think everyone that spoke edited their responses, actually.
23:15	<Justin Ridgewell>	At least, I say several editing afterwards.
23:38	<jschoi>	Yeah, everyone edited during and for a few minutes after the meeting. (Thanks everyone for your help.) So I’ll probably just stick with publishing in a couple of days.