| 09:09 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Fixing up the essential internal methods definition will conflict with https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3912, any chance I could get 2 more reviews? Remember that auto-linking of internal methods is something wea re excited about! |
| 09:28 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Ok actually I can make it not conflict |
| 18:58 | <ptomato> | is there a convention for what to name aliases when you have something like "Foo.prototype.someMethod ( someQuantity ) ... 1. Let someQ be ? ToNumber(someQuantity)" |
| 18:59 | <ptomato> | this is particularly bad in https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-date.prototype.setutcseconds |
| 18:59 | <ptomato> | where it's "s" and "sec", no indication which one is which, likewise "ms" and "milli" |
| 19:00 | <ptomato> | if there isn't existing guidance, could I propose "secondValue" for the ECMAScript language value, and "second" for the coerced quantity? |
| 19:05 | <Michael Ficarra> | if it's not used again, why not just re-assign? |
| 19:09 | <ptomato> | I'm good with that, but I expected that to be a controversial opinion |
| 19:56 | <ptomato> | for one thing, ESMeta doesn't like it: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/actions/runs/31835031603/job/94879319898?pr=3953 |
| 19:59 | <ptomato> | it looks like ESMeta can't narrow the type when an alias is reassigned |
| 21:28 | <bakkot> | I was pretty sure you were against aliases changing types at some point |
| 22:19 | <Michael Ficarra> | yeah I definitely was |
| 22:20 | <Michael Ficarra> | I was just floating the idea |
| 22:20 | <Michael Ficarra> | I would prefer SSA lol |
| 22:36 | <ptomato> | oh, darn. well, I guess I can redo that later |