00:12 | <shu> | would be interested in your take on what shifts in the ecosystem if V8 just stops doing that work; not that I advocate for that outcome, but I assume you've gamed that scenario out? |
01:02 | <Marja Hölttä (not here, use marja@google.com)> | We have been trying to identify any real slowdowns and don’t see one in V8. If anyone is experiencing a slowdown of private compared to public in V8, I would love to hear from you; maybe we could sponsor work to do the appropriate optimization. |
01:22 | <Mathieu Hofman> | Well if regulators force Chrome to be spun off Google I expect the funding economics of the Web would drastically shift too |
02:31 | <Aki> | Do we keep a list of what we consider a stage 4-eligible implementation? |
02:35 | <rkirsling> | > shipping implementations, such as that provided by two independent VMs I feel like this is one of those "has a very concrete meaning in practice and needs to be kept abstract on paper" things |
02:37 | <rkirsling> | (also why tf does Element for Android not allow typing formatted text) |
02:39 | <Aki> | So in practice, JSC, SpiderMonkey, or V8 and that's that? |
02:42 | <rkirsling> | in theory others like XS should count but the shipping experience as "proof that the web didn't break" is so important |
06:30 | <ljharb> | they do count when web compat isn’t a concern |
06:31 | <ljharb> | i have an open PR on the process doc that suggests we should define “risk areas” for each proposal, and use those to inform what counts - ie, what reassurances are most needed |
06:33 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Process proposal to make a proposal's title blink if it changes Array.prototype |
09:01 | <nicolo-ribaudo> |
My use case is that I need an immutable weakset. For |
09:02 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | My
|
09:18 | <ljharb> | how would the values be "cloned"? or would it just put the same === items in both WMs/WSs? |
09:19 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Yes, same items |
09:19 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | It's like doing new Set(oldSet) , except that you cannot do this with WeakSets because they are not iterable |
09:21 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | And this would be much easier to implement in engines than in userland, because engines can iterate over WeakSet contents |
09:31 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Why not build a wrapper over a WeakSet that prevents writes? |
09:32 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | I trust my code to not mutate the WeakSet , so I don't need to prevent writes |
09:33 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | I need to keep around both the old one and the new one |
09:36 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Oh, I found https://github.com/tc39/proposal-readonly-collections/issues/2. WeakSet.prototype.diverge() is exactly what I need |
12:18 | <Richard Gibson> | not all implementations can iterate over WeakSet contents; XS in particular uses an inverted approach that would not support this |
12:20 | <yulia> | Tg5 workshop photo |