| 03:08 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Ok, finally home |
| 03:09 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Reviewing, I think Slide 4 (Generators) slides needs to mention that we removed snapshotting behavior for spec generators |
| 03:15 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Oh, we should also mention that test262 is already done? |
| 05:26 | <Andreu Botella> | I would not say already done, I'd say it has comprehensive coverage or something like that |
| 11:54 | <littledan> | What is the difference? Comprehensive sounds great to me |
| 11:56 | <Andreu Botella> | I'd want more tests for actual context propagation, interaction between various language features that propagate the context, etc. |
| 14:09 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Updated to “comphrehensive” |
| 14:20 | <littledan> | I'd want more tests for actual context propagation, interaction between various language features that propagate the context, etc. |
| 14:21 | <Andreu Botella> | sounds like it's not yet comprehensive? |
| 14:23 | <littledan> | right, I understand the word "comprehensive" to mean that it's complete |
| 14:24 | <littledan> | so if you are trying to make a weaker claim, this isn't really the best word |
| 14:24 | <Andreu Botella> | you might be right |
| 14:24 | <littledan> | maybe we could say "test262 coverage for core paths" |
| 14:31 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Some investigation into interaction with other TC39 proposalsWhat other proposal? |
| 14:31 | <Justin Ridgewell> | (Sorry about the unedited text, I’m still getting use to a new keyboard layout) |
| 14:35 | <Andreu Botella> | Some investigation into interaction with other TC39 proposalsWhat other proposal? |
| 14:35 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Ahh |
| 14:36 | <littledan> | also signals |
| 14:41 | <bakkot> | incidentally it looks like Observables are going to be in Chrome regardless of what happens elsewhere; not sure if there has been discussion of integration there https://github.com/WICG/observable |
| 14:41 | <littledan> | My understanding is that Chrome has them behind a flag; they haven't done an i2s so no decision has been made |
| 14:41 | <Andreu Botella> | we were considering existing observers, like IntersectionObserver, which are already an established part of the web platform |
| 14:41 | <Andreu Botella> | I haven't looked into observables though |
| 14:42 | <littledan> | incidentally it looks like Observables are going to be in Chrome regardless of what happens elsewhere; not sure if there has been discussion of integration there https://github.com/WICG/observable |
| 14:43 | <littledan> | I suspect that explicit positions from WebKit and Mozilla will be pretty influential as to whether Chrome ships this |
| 14:43 | <littledan> | also the TAG review which hasn't come back |
| 14:45 | <bakkot> | I... do not share that expectation |
| 14:48 | <littledan> | My main concern with observables is that people will reach for them for reactivity--and get broken push-based reactivity as a result. They should use lazy, pull-based reactivity instead, as proposed in Signals |
| 14:49 | <littledan> | Here's what I wrote previously (but this was back when I didn't understand reactivity as well): https://github.com/WICG/observable/issues/56 |