true. I don't know if this has ever not been the case, and if so, how long ago. IME it has been voluntary; folks only add themselves and not others

for Ecma's attendance-keeping it is not the only system of record. the secretary monitors the online meeting participants (and in-person folks), as well as the sign-in form people complete to get the link for the online meeting

I think it's useful to have the complete attendees in the doc itself for the notes/history but it may be that some people don't want to be listed for some reason

new Date(2030, 1, 29) → Date Fri Mar 01 2030 00:00:00

If it helps, this is what I understood happens by default based on the type of methods/conversions

• String->Temporal validates the strings and throws
• Plain object->Temporal validates that each parameter is individually in its potential domain (e.g. days are positive integers, which is all we know about days without looking at other parameters) and then "rounds towards zero" to get a valid date
• Temporal->Temporal rounds towards zero to get a valid date

There is an exception to that Temporal->Temporal class, which is the method today the champions were proposing to change to not throw anymore

1. If you have 0, 1, or 2 inputs, the result is trivial.

2. If you have 3 or more inputs, use the approach in the paper to compute an exact sum, represented as (p0+p1+…), where each p_i is a double and their exponents differ by at least 53 binary powers — in practice you'll likely end up with just one or two such p_i. Then round the sum as in fsum, taking care of the round-to-nearest-breaking-ties-to-even case in fsum.

3. If you get ±∞ or NaN as any of the inputs, the result is always ±∞ or NaN and you can figure it out directly without doing arithmetic.

4. Getting ±∞ as an intermediate result is only an issue if you have later cancellation coming that can bring the result back into a finite range. To take care of that case, always try to add in arguments with the opposite sign from your running total first.

waldemar: can you elaborate on "always try to add in arguments with the opposite sign from your running total first"? at what point during the algorithm do you mean? there's a basic Python implementation given at https://code.activestate.com/recipes/393090/ ; can you suggest the change you're proposing as a diff to this algorithm? (This algorithm is bugged, on the last line, but otherwise correct I believe)

def msum(iterable):
    "Full precision summation using multiple floats for intermediate values"
    # Rounded x+y stored in hi with the round-off stored in lo.  Together
    # hi+lo are exactly equal to x+y.  The inner loop applies hi/lo summation
    # to each partial so that the list of partial sums remains exact.
    # Depends on IEEE-754 arithmetic guarantees.  See proof of correctness at:
    # www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/quake/public/papers/robust-arithmetic.ps

    partials = []               # sorted, non-overlapping partial sums
    for x in iterable:
        i = 0
        for y in partials:
            if abs(x) < abs(y):
                x, y = y, x
            hi = x + y
            lo = y - (hi - x)
            if lo:
                partials[i] = lo
                i += 1
            x = hi
        partials[i:] = [x]
    return sum(partials, 0.0)

ljharb: here's the relevant notes from the last meeting and why I thought that this was not possible

NRO: If you don’t want to wait too long to ship this, could we ship it without the constructor property until when we know it’s safe to do so? Because, like, I know that that’s burden of polyfill containers and people that care about compat matters, but, like, in practice, would this be an okay way to, like, avoid this hack, if we cannot solve the problem quick enough?

JWK: I think it’s not possible because the iterator prototype is already reachable via Array#values. The iterator prototype is already existed and this proposal just exposes it on the global. You cannot really move a thing from it.

CDA: Okay, last on the queue is Jordan. Plus one to drop constructor and toStringTag temporarily in the meantime. End of message.

JHD: I did just want to add to Jack’s comment, the hidden iterator intrinsic does not have a iterator property. It tries to add it. It will fall back to object.prototype.

JWK: Oh, I don’t know that, if that’s the case, maybe we can do it.