| 07:23 | <Ashley Claymore> | A fair assessment! |
| 07:24 | <Ashley Claymore> | Any interest in reviewing this unrelated proposal? |
| 08:21 | <rkirsling> | hah! I'm not opposed, I've just got an awful lot to get done this week. I can make a note for myself to look at it soon |
| 15:31 | <ljharb> | the proposal is for the problem being solved, irrespective of the solution |
| 16:02 | <bakkot> | DataView.prototype.byteLength throws if the backing buffer is out of bounds; %TypedArray%.prototype.byteLength just returns 0. how do we feel about making DataView also return 0 |
| 16:03 | <bakkot> | ArrayBuffer.prototype.byteLength also returns 0 as of https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2164 (used to be spec'd to throw) |
| 16:04 | <bakkot> | generally I like louder errors but this inconsistency is quite surprising to me |
| 16:04 | <bakkot> | this came up in the context of https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/pull/1529 |
| 16:33 | <ljharb> | if anyone's using it as a brand check, that would break them - i'd have to make changes to https://www.npmjs.com/package/data-view-byte-length for sure |
| 16:49 | <bakkot> | it would only break if using it as a brand check for a DataView backed by a detached or oob buffer, which seems unlikely? |
| 16:50 | <bakkot> | although actually even then it's somewhat hard to come up with a scenario where it breaks them using it as a brand check |
| 16:56 | <ljharb> | a predicate with a try/catch, so only an exception returns false |
| 16:56 | <ljharb> | but you're right that it's less likely since it's just detached or oob - just not zero |
| 17:00 | <bakkot> | currently you get an exception if it is not a DataView or if it is a DataView backed by an oob buffer, and the proposed change would be to make it so you only get an exception if it not a DataView, and that seems probably more like what you want? |
| 17:00 | <bakkot> | if you're doing a brand check |
| 17:15 | <ljharb> | ah true. in my predicate i use the buffer accessor anyways, not byte length. so it indeed might not break anyone |
| 22:51 | <James M Snell> | On the Error code property proposal... I won't be in tokyo this time so won't be asking to advance it until the next plenary. However, the discussion around the claimed conflict with DOMException https://github.com/tc39/proposal-error-code-property/issues/2#issuecomment-5479041138 really has me for a bit of a loss and I want to get a sense of where folks here are at on the discussion. |
| 23:45 | <Michael Ficarra> | on a scale from Anne to James, I am James |
| 23:46 | <Michael Ficarra> | unless we can get a better articulated objection, I don't see how this feedback can be acted upon |