| 14:38 | <dminor> | It looks like we just shipped the telemetry. I think at this point if webkit and v8 are shipping, we should just remove the telemetry and ship the change. nicolo-ribaudo do you want to make the updates, or would you like me to take it over? |
| 14:44 | <bakkot> | I don't know if either of the other browsers are shipping to stable, to be clear |
| 14:47 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | It looks like we just shipped the telemetry. I think at this point if webkit and v8 are shipping, we should just remove the telemetry and ship the change. Mh yeah it looks like I ended up not finishing that patch because somebody was refactoring the same code at the same time 😅 I am not able to type for a few weeks, please go ahead :) I'd be curious to see the telemetry data we have so far |
| 15:12 | <dminor> | bakkot: do you have links handy for the webkit and v8 changes? It would be helpful for coordinating shipping. |
| 15:13 | <bakkot> | Linked from the ecma262 issue iirc, I can dig them up when I'm at a computer next |
| 15:13 | <bakkot> | Or the pr rather |
| 15:16 | <dminor> | Got them, thanks! |
| 17:02 | <guybedford> | There's an interesting discussion here on native error objects in Wasm - https://github.com/WebAssembly/custom-descriptors/issues/80. The driving motivation is Wasm GC objects being used as throwable errors, by being able to somehow relate the Wasm GC error object's descriptor to make it a real error object. This discussion comes under the proposal umbrella of turning "opaque" GC objects into real objects with descriptors. In particular the |
| 17:10 | <Michael Ficarra> | @guybedford There's still time to add discussion items to the agenda for the next TC39 meeting. |
| 17:10 | <guybedford> | I'm not personally involved in the above discussion, I'm posting here in the hopes more folks can take these discussions on! |
| 17:15 | <Michael Ficarra> | my reading of this is that it would only affect debugger behaviour, which 262 does not constrain |
| 17:16 | <bakkot> | It is an interesting question how hosts should expose their own well known symbols though |
| 17:18 | <Michael Ficarra> | TG4 probably has a lot of the interested parties. This person may want to make a presentation to them. Not sure what TC39 could do about it though. |
| 18:57 | <guybedford> | The root problem is basically subclassing Error for Wasm GC objects, which is currently off the table as something in Wasm explicitly. |
| 18:57 | <guybedford> | so if non-Error objects might be able to define a symbol or otherwise to get error-level treatment |
| 19:37 | <Mathieu Hofman> | Haven't read the thread yet, but why not create an Error at the wasm boundary, with a cause being the wasm opaque object ? |
| 22:27 | <bakkot> | Wasm GC objects can be passed around to and from JS FFIs. Is the idea that you'd wrap every FFI call which involved a Wasm GC object to inspect the object and determine if you should substitute a wrapper? |
| 22:27 | <bakkot> | I think that would work but it's probably prohibitively expensive |
| 22:27 | <bakkot> | (possibly I am not understanding the suggestion) |