00:01 | <shu> | yes, it would be good to call out all the entry points |
00:02 | <shu> | lack of tighter integration of entry points is what led to our having a "dead" (i.e. no upstream specs were using it) Jobs machinery for so long |
00:38 | <rbuckton> | FYI: I'm looking for feedback on a proposed changed to the explicit resource management proposal: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-management/issues/65. The feedback from that issue will help me prepare for bringing this proposal back to committee at an upcoming meeting. Any input would be appreciated. |
01:13 | <mhofman> | presumably we could just pick one, but i'm guessing the challenge is ensuring that the one we pick matches the intention of people relying on those meanings? isExtensible as-is, add new isMutablePrototype and preventPrototypeMutation traps, and add an invariant that [[IsMutablePrototype]] must return false if [[IsExtensible]] returns false? Then since the proxy exotic functions currently enforces the invariants on the target, the proxy traps would have to respect the invariants. Is there something I'm missing? |
01:37 | <ljharb> | that kind of matches what i'd assume we'd do |
06:06 | <Ashley Claymore> | FYI: I'm looking for feedback on a proposed changed to the explicit resource management proposal: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-management/issues/65. The feedback from that issue will help me prepare for bringing this proposal back to committee at an upcoming meeting. Any input would be appreciated. Branch name:
Very much enjoyed that |
14:36 | <TabAtkins (OOO Sep18-Sep26)> | @bakkot return a string for "yes" and the new case, so it's still truthy for the cases that are at least somewhat extensible? |
17:17 | <Ashley Claymore> | Reminder: Record & Tuple Monthly today at 18:00 UTC (in 45mins) |
18:03 | <mhofman> | Reminder: Record & Tuple Monthly today at 18:00 UTC (in 45mins) |
18:04 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | We have some problems with starting the call |
18:05 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Ok it's working |