| 00:29 | <Willian Martins> | QQ on the decoration discussion, If I have something like |
| 00:29 | <Willian Martins> | Will that be a valid syntax and will be include on Function.prototype.toString()? |
| 00:42 | <rbuckton> | Yes, the decorators would be included in this case because they are part of the ClassDefinition production. |
| 00:43 | <Willian Martins> | thanks! |
| 02:57 | <Justin Ridgewell> | ljharb: Can you post the links to your slides? |
| 02:57 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Get Intrinsics in particular |
| 02:58 | <Justin Ridgewell> | I don't think you presented slides for Symbol Predicates |
| 03:48 | <ljharb> | yes, I will do so ~later tonight~ tomorrow, and you’re right, i didn’t |
| 17:27 | <Rob Palmer> | Ron requested I setup a poll on the syntax for Async Explicit Resource Management. So here goes. |
| 17:44 | <bterlson> | Mastodon has polls, you could prob edit it in |
| 17:45 | <bterlson> | Maybe depends on client I guess |
| 17:49 | <bakkot> |
using async not included because no one liked that option, or is there some more serious problem with it I'm forgetting? |
| 19:31 | <ljharb> | ranked choice voting when :-( |
| 20:08 | <rbuckton> | async isn't a reserved word |
| 20:08 | <rbuckton> | While await is, even though it is allowed in non-strict mode for historical reasons. |
| 20:10 | <rbuckton> | We possibly could have included it, but that would mean a much broader restriction in the sync proposal than the using await restriction we discussed in plenary. |
| 20:10 | <rbuckton> | Since await is already an illegal identifier in modules, but async is not. |
| 20:15 | <littledan> | we could've made async blocked as an identifier everywhere that await is, but I guess we didn't. So await is easier to parse. |