| 16:23 | <shu> | Aki: bterlson mylesborins can one of the TC39 space admins create a "Structs and Shared Structs" room for me? |
| 16:24 | <bterlson> | only if I can add "oh my" to the title |
| 16:27 | <shu> | thank you kindly |
| 16:27 | <shu> | can anyone join the TC39 rooms? |
| 16:28 | <shu> | or rather, anyone in TC39? |
| 16:28 | <shu> | actually is it in the TC39 space? |
| 16:29 | <shu> | i don't see the TC39 logo (this happened to me when i created a room myself and found that i couldn't put it in the TC39 space) |
| 16:37 | <bterlson> | the permissions are anyone can join, not just tc39. I did add it to the TC39 space I think? It's under there for me anyway, in my client. |
| 16:38 | <bterlson> | if I right click on the space and go to manage/explore rooms, I also see the room listed there |
| 17:23 | <shu> | sgtm |
| 17:58 | <shu> | Temporal champions, why are nanoseconds a Number in Duration but a BigInt in Instant? |
| 18:04 | <ptomato> | shu: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/1604 |
| 18:05 | <ptomato> | it would be more consistent to have them be BigInts, but it seems like implementors would prefer doubles, and it's arguable whether they will run into the precision limits in practice |
| 18:07 | <ptomato> | Instant, on the other hand, must be able to store epoch nanoseconds up to ±1e8 days, the limit of legacy Date, which does not fit in a Number, so Number is definitely out |
| 18:09 | <ptomato> | input on that github issue is welcome! |
| 18:19 | <shu> | there's maybe a related question of "is nanosecond precision a good idea" that i recall coming up internally |
| 18:20 | <shu> | ptomato: thanks for the link |
| 18:22 | <jschoi> | only if I can add "oh my" to the title |
| 18:22 | <ptomato> | shu: another link about nanosecond precision: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/1700 |
| 18:23 | <bterlson> | jschoi: I added TC39 to the title, good call |
| 20:05 | <shu> | the UX of the Element client remains a mystery to me |