| 14:59 | <littledan> | This is really good: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-context/issues/45 |
| 23:09 | <Justin Ridgewell> | I didn't realize how closely our API matched Python's |
| 23:10 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Even my suggested constructor params, method names, etc, all somehow the same |
| 23:10 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Their set() and reset() API is worse, though. |
| 23:59 | <littledan> | I like the idea of calling the instances “context variables” instead of “async contexts”. This seems more intuitive |
| 23:59 | <littledan> | Also I like the name “context” for the AsyncResource/wrap thing |
| 23:59 | <littledan> | The cross-linguistic comparison is interesting because I think much of the committee thinks we are doing a crazy C# thing when actually everyplace that has async await finds the need for this |
| 23:59 | <littledan> | Maybe that should make it into our next presentation |