| 00:00 | <jschoi> | When I wrote https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/232#issuecomment-2784879225, I had no idea what was going to happen with pipe operator and JSSugar. It seemed like an existential and rapidly evolving issue for not only pipe operator but every convenience syntax proposal. Seemingly not much has happened since then—I’m still not sure what’s going on with JSSugar. |
| 16:24 | <Steve Hicks> | I agree in general, but I'm not convinved that this features meets that bar. This is a feature that would squarely fit in the "JS Sugar" bucket, if we'd followed up with that split - it's entirely a developer ergonomics feature, so it seems like the wrong trade-off to make it unpolyfillable and/or to have an expensive transpilation that has to touch tons of existing code. |
| 18:42 | <rbuckton> | While I agree that Hack pipelines are generally "JS Sugar", I'm not yet convinced that something like call-this should be. |
| 18:46 | <rbuckton> | The fact that Hack-style pipelines are essentially just , makes their desugaring trivial. I don't agree that something that is "entirely a developer ergonomics feature" means it must be polyfillable. Operator overloading is purely a developer ergonomics feature, and that cannot be polyfilled cleanly. |
| 18:49 | <rbuckton> | I'm also not bullish on o..(x)() syntax due to possible confusion over null chaining with ?/?.[/?.(, which may make that syntax an uphill battle. |