| 19:32 | <ptomato> | is there any recent news on the "rm subclassing" proposal? |
| 19:47 | <littledan> | arguably set methods to Stage 3 is a pretty strong milestone to establishing how these things should work in the future |
| 19:47 | <littledan> | beyond that, I haven't heard of any progress in the assessments to how web-compatible it'd be to remove some of the ES6 cruft |
| 19:51 | <ptomato> | I seem to remember that someone said last time that Set methods wasn't intended to be a precedent? |
| 20:24 | <shu> | firefox said there were incompats and i have vague memory of waiting on the data there for next steps, but it's been a bit |
| 20:34 | <bakkot> | Set methods were explicitly intended to be a precedent https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HCqPMsWiTtsn92gA3b1luVpnVHWVVR0iKaAE0marxkA/edit#slide=id.g13a69787e9f_0_13 |
| 20:36 | <bakkot> | I do think we should have gone with Symbols rather than strings, and might fight about that when that particular question comes up, but IIRC that was the only point of contention |
| 20:36 | <bakkot> | we were all on board with the subclassing behavior, I believe |
| 20:40 | <bakkot> | https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/6f7e075341e435f22777b07a3ee5141442d2d8a7/meetings/2022-03/mar-31.md#extending-built-ins is a better link I guess, since that's the presentation where we talked about subclassing in particular rather than Symbol vs string |
| 20:41 | <bakkot> | well, though that was less focused on Symbol.species, actually |
| 20:41 | <bakkot> | there's a lot of parts of this... |