| 00:19 | <keith_miller> | What do people think the web compatibility story is likely to be for making bound functions no longer have a configurable .prototype property? Possible? Incompatible? |
| 04:29 | <snek> | i don't think i've ever seen code touching the prototype field of a bound function |
| 07:33 | <Mathieu Hofman> | What do people think the web compatibility story is likely to be for making bound functions no longer have a configurable |
| 07:41 | <Mathieu Hofman> | Actually no we're good, we redefine the prototype property, and don't rely on one being present |
| 14:28 | <littledan> | I guess you're asking about making the property non-configurable, rather than removing it, right? this seems complicated to assess the web compatibility... |
| 14:28 | <littledan> | what's the motivation? |
| 15:00 | <littledan> | Is there anything further that people would like to discuss about Signals in TC39? I don't have any big updates yet, but could go further into explanations of certain details or any questions that people have. |
| 15:06 | <ljharb> | What do people think the web compatibility story is likely to be for making bound functions no longer have a configurable |
| 17:17 | <rbuckton> | Are any other runtimes working on implementations of RegExp Modifiers? It's now shipping in Chrome and Edge, though both use the same implementation in V8. I saw that SpiderMonkey now has a tracking issue, but cannot find one yet for JSC. |
| 17:35 | <shu> | i may be misremembering but i thought JSC was first to ship |
| 17:36 | <iain> | SM imports irregexp, so under the covers it's mostly the same implementation as Chrome and Edge. |
| 18:59 | <rbuckton> | For SpiderMonkey I found https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1899813, which was only opened 3 hours ago |
| 19:01 | <rbuckton> | I haven't yet found a tracking bug for JSC. |
| 19:37 | <keith_miller> | http://npmjs.com/function-bind doesn't even seem to reference "defineProperty" so I think that would be fine. Ditto for https://github.com/es-shims/es5-shim/blob/5930e4ac2c4fce44866a000b2ea9704c349f5cf5/es5-shim.js#L241 but maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing? |
| 19:44 | <keith_miller> | I don't think there's a JSC bug for RegExp Modifiers and I 95% sure we don't implement it |
| 20:25 | <ljharb> | yeah it might just be that it’ll retroactively make their bind fakeage wrong? which would depend on the overall compatibility of it |
| 21:02 | <shu> | i thought michael loved regexp |
| 22:00 | <keith_miller> | Don't we all love RegExp? |