| 04:24 | <sideshowbarker> | Was the pipeline operator proposal integrated into the ES spec itself already? |
| 04:25 | <sideshowbarker> | nevermind, of course not — I see it’s only at stage 1 still |
| 04:39 | <sideshowbarker> | OK yeah, FYI we’re dropping all info about the pipeline operator from MDN and from BCD |
| 04:42 | <sideshowbarker> | for details, see https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/5394 |
| 04:43 | <sideshowbarker> | and see also https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/pull/6957#pullrequestreview-509954390 |
| 06:03 | <Florian Scholz> | Merged, thanks sideshowbarker :) |
| 06:47 | <jschoi> | OK yeah, FYI we’re dropping all info about the pipeline operator from MDN and from BCD |
| 06:51 | <sideshowbarker> | Removing pipe operator’s documentation until it’s settled seems appropriate, given its high flux, but did something happen regarding the pipe operator at the May TC39 meeting? |
| 06:54 | <jschoi> | Oh yeah; also seems like a good idea. |
| 07:04 | <jschoi> | https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/5394#issue-655147724
Not sure what they mean by this. 🤔 |
| 16:10 | <hober> | How would I go about teaching the TC39 Delegates channel that I'm a delegate? |
| 16:11 | <ptomato> | pinging one of the admins to add you |
| 16:11 | <Jack Works> | lol |
| 16:47 | <leobalter> | hober: do you need/want access to the TC39 Delegates channel or extended access to the Reflector repo in the TC39's GH org? For the TC39 Delegates channel, I'd ping Aki Rob Palmer yulia, for the extended access you'd need a point of contact from your org to register a new delegate in the TC39's Admin-and-Business repo. I believe that's probably done at this point? |
| 16:48 | <leobalter> | I tried but I can't invite hober |
| 16:52 | <Rob Palmer> | hober: you are now privileged |
| 16:53 | <hober> | I think I already have access to things on GitHub. |
| 16:53 | <hober> | Thanks! |
| 21:55 | <bakkot> | jmdyck: I'd like to get back to #545 now that fields have landed; but it needs a rebase, do you think you'll get a chance sometime? |
| 22:16 | <ljharb> | DerekNonGeneric: the stacks proposal is perfectly viable and in no way withdrawn |
| 22:16 | <ljharb> | DerekNonGeneric: in general, it's not necessarily appropriate for a reference implementation to exist for any pre-stage-3 proposal. |
| 22:19 | <ljharb> | DerekNonGeneric: also "SystemJS" has nothing to do with it - that the namespace is called "System" is the reason SystemJS named itself that, but the System namespace predates both SystemJS and the stacks proposal |
| 22:20 | <ljharb> | DerekNonGeneric: happy to chat more about it but the matrix interface is weird for me; i'd prefer irc :-) |
| 22:25 | <DerekNonGeneric> | crystal clear now, thanks ljharb |
| 22:50 | <jmdyck> | bakkot: 545 needs a few things more than a rebase; I should be able to get back to it soon. |