| 21:35 | <jmdyck> | I forget: does it still make sense for AddRestrictedFunctionProperties to exist (as opposed to using more conventional means to declare the properties in question)? |
| 22:21 | <bakkot> | AddRestrictedFunctionProperties looks pretty conventional to me? |
| 22:21 | <jmdyck> | it's syntactically conventional, but it's not how properties of intrinsics are usually 'declared' |
| 22:23 | <bakkot> | ah, for built-ins, you mean? |
| 22:23 | <jmdyck> | (I've re-found #877 and #1148.) |
| 22:23 | <jmdyck> | yeah, built-ins. |
| 22:23 | <bakkot> | seems fine to keep it separate, I think, since those properties are conceptually unlike other properties |
| 22:24 | <jmdyck> | what's the conceptual diff? |
| 22:25 | <bakkot> | most other properties exist to be accessed; these exist specifically because they're not supposed to be accessed |
| 22:25 | <jmdyck> | ah ok |
| 22:27 | <bakkot> | (#877 and #1148 are about actually normatively removing the properties themselves, afaict, despite the misleading names) |
| 23:05 | <sideshowbarker> | The emu-note notes are really helpful and I wish the spec had even more of them |
| 23:06 | <sideshowbarker> | especially the longer ones like the one at https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/indexed-collections.html#sec-array.prototype.reduce |
| 23:07 | <sideshowbarker> | …which I was reading today in the context of trying to resolve the MDN issue at https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/6156 |
| 23:08 | <sideshowbarker> | the wording of thatemu-note in the spec is more clear than what we have in MDN |
| 23:10 | <sideshowbarker> | among the things that help make it more clear is, using previousValue to refer to the first argument of the callbackfn for reduce() (rather than calling it accumulator, as MDN currently does |