| 01:41 | <ljharb> | i understand the rationale, but i think it’d be better to catch as many things as possible before runtime even if we can’t catch them all. |
| 02:19 | <rbuckton> | I think it just adds arbitrary complexity to the spec and to implementations, not to mention the additional overhead during parse and static semantics evaluation, for almost no gain. |
| 02:28 | <rbuckton> | There's a long tail of things in JS that are syntactically valid, but otherwise incorrect, like 3(), or f() = 1, or null.x. Banning those syntactically would significantly increase the complexity of both the existing specification text and new proposals. I'm not saying I'm opposed, just that I don't think the costs are worth the benefits. |
| 03:44 | <bakkot> | fully agreed with rbuckton , though pedantically: f() = 1 is actually syntactically invalid per spec but needs to be legal in engines for web-compat reasons; there is a longstanding open issue about this that no one has gotten around to fixing https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/257 |
| 03:57 | <rbuckton> | That's exactly the kind of complexity that adding additional syntactic bans would litter throughout the whole spec. |
| 06:52 | <Jack Works> | how come |
| 06:54 | <rbuckton> | Yes. |
| 06:54 | <rbuckton> | Though class Foo extends "bar" {} will throw on class declaration evaluation, so the constructor will never be called |
| 06:55 | <rbuckton> | Uncaught TypeError: Class extends value "bar" is not a constructor or null |
| 07:38 | <ljharb> | That's exactly the kind of complexity that adding additional syntactic bans would litter throughout the whole spec. |
| 13:15 | <littledan> | I don’t think this change would decrease complexity of engine runtimes. They would need their runtime error path anyway, in addition to a new syntax error check |
| 18:32 | <Michael Ficarra> | since most people (even those who care) probably don't follow the process-document repo, here is a link to the PR that implements the refactoring we discussed in plenary: https://github.com/tc39/process-document/pull/38 |
| 19:08 | <littledan> | Is anyone in touch with any Tencent delegates at TC39? Ecma's having trouble getting in touch with them. |
| 19:21 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, I'm also a long-time anti-RCVer. Approval voting gets my vote for "result qualtiy" vs "complexity to explain". |
| 23:07 | <Jack Works> | Is anyone in touch with any Tencent delegates at TC39? Ecma's having trouble getting in touch with them. |
| 23:20 | <littledan> | Thanks |