| 13:39 | <pzuraq> | I should have some time to work on the updated transform in the next month or so |
| 13:39 | <pzuraq> | I want to get the new metadata proposal up first |
| 13:40 | <pzuraq> | since it will likely be significantly simpler, based on feedback from the plenary |
| 13:40 | <pzuraq> | ljharb: Can you setup the repo for the proposal? Or should I set it up and then transfer it? |
| 13:40 | <pzuraq> | should probably be proposal-decorator-metadata |
| 15:35 | <ljharb> | I can make it later today |
| 16:24 | pokute | wonders if he can contribute more than just terrible ideas... |
| 16:33 | <pzuraq> | ideas are always welcome :D though the proposal is unlikely to change significantly at this point |
| 16:34 | <pzuraq> | there are potential follow on proposals however |
| 16:34 | <pzuraq> | would definitely love help |
| 16:35 | <pokute> | Well, this came to mind just a while ago on another channel:
|
| 16:36 | <pzuraq> | yeah, I think that would be a significant divergence at this point |
| 16:37 | <pzuraq> | the syntax has been agreed on for quite some time, much longer than the semantics, so I think it's very unlikely to change |
| 16:37 | <ljharb> | pzuraq: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decorator-metadata ping me when it's somewhat fleshed out, and i'll add it to the proposals repo |
| 16:37 | <pzuraq> | awesome, ty! |
| 16:39 | <pokute> | the syntax has been agreed on for quite some time, much longer than the semantics, so I think it's very unlikely to change |
| 16:40 | <pzuraq> | I moreso mean the syntax has been agreed on for a few years at least at this point |
| 16:40 | <pzuraq> | ish, it could have changed |
| 16:40 | <pzuraq> | but that has not come up in discussions much |
| 16:40 | <pzuraq> | and it would have probably taken a really really good argument to change it |
| 16:40 | <pzuraq> | the best argument I can see for this alternative is it's kind of like pipes, but pipes aren't even a given at this point |
| 16:51 | <pokute> | It's just something I wish had been brought up before. I don't think there's really any advantage for prefix over this form other than the fact that other languages use similar style. The infix operator style has the difference of clearer evaluation order at least. There's also different usage possibilities, which admittedly might not make sense under more scrutiny. :-) |
| 16:52 | <pzuraq> | yeah, that's fair |
| 16:54 | <pzuraq> | I feel like either form could be more intuitive |
| 16:54 | <pzuraq> | but I'm probably biased after working on it for so many years to be fair 😅 |