important question: what games are you putting on that GPU?

Factorio :)

6pm-1am in PT isn't too bad, but in CT that'd be rough

According to google it takes 335 days to walk around the globe, you could start walking and the meetings would be mostly equally distributed in one year

sffc: You should see if it's feasible to generate polyfills using KAIST's esmeta

i mean splice is already a gross name but it exists, having another name is worse

yeah but you need it on tuples

Regardless of compiler optimizations, immutability has been one of the core goals of this proposal since the beginning

I feel fine committing to making record/tuple not becoming a mutable value type like in Swift; to avoid making way too many copies, Swift depends on compiler optimizations that would be infeasible for JS

HE Shi-Jun: If you have an idea for how to get past this issue, I'd be interested to hear it.

How do I change my company on TCQ?

also the runtime version of CoW depends on reference counting, also easier in Swift

(if my understanding is wrong please correct me)

yeah i feel very unmotivated about the whole object wrapper situation lol

I guess you technically don't but you probably should

console.log in node can use native apis from v8

to be clear, these exotic wrappers only come up when you invoke a method (presumably with .call) in sloppy code with the record or tuple as its this

Is there a mechanism to unwrap a Record wrapper if there's no .valueOf?

but if it did that would work

more like "true statement"

If wrappers are immutable, Record(wrapper)

If wrappers are immutable, Record(wrapper)

Then it's not "unwrapping" the wrapper, its constructing a new record, which is not the same.

it should just extract the slot and return it. if not, that's a bug

rkirsling: did you volunteer to review?

So it only matters if they are mutable: if they are immutable, that's unwrapping

If record wrappers are mutable, then I'd want some mechanism to unwrap like valueOf

__proto__ not being allowed is unfortunate but understandable

Object(x) returning a primitive would be quite bad

The current proposal is that record wrappers are immutable. We're still waiting on a concrete scenario presented which justifies otherwise.

HE Shi-Jun: You could just use { ...r } instead of Object(r)

A use case wouldn't just be code but also an explanation of why we want to do this

syntax budget definition is up for someone to review: https://github.com/tc39/how-we-work/pull/116

new Array(n) is worse than hitting the syntax budget don't @ me

like with doesn't really count, because, like, you don't have to know about it

I use it everyday, in our production code!

Is new Evaluators the with-killer we need?

that was a "you" meaning, like, normal people, not the people in this room. I also have to know about B.3.3 but no one else should

We need consensus to customize? :D

nicolo-ribaudo: we're not letting you drive a bus anymore

from a set of how many people tho

yeah B.3.3 isn't so bad by comparison

also I guess it's actually B.3.2 now? which thing did we remove...

yeah, what if we just used the inverted version of every single existing color?

yeah i'll just copy discord's colors /s