| 11:50 | <sideshowbarker> | https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/6172 could use some review from a domain expert |
| 11:50 | <sideshowbarker> | see my comment at https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/6172 |
| 11:59 | <Jack Works> | Why await is a new reserved keyword in module? Is that prepared for TLA or committee though they may add async function in the future so reserved it? |
| 12:20 | <Ashley Claymore> | Why await is a new reserved keyword in module? Is that prepared for TLA or committee though they may add async function in the future so reserved it? |
| 13:27 | <Jack Works> | Thanks |
| 14:06 | <sideshowbarker> | can somebody take a minute to review the (one-line) patch in https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/6191 and confirm whether it’s fully accurate or not? |
| 14:11 | <jmdyck> | B.3.4 only applies when parsing non-strict code, so it's a Syntax Error in strict code, so "This is no longer the case" is wrong, I think. |
| 14:11 | <jmdyck> | But I might be missing something. |
| 14:16 | <jmdyck> | Hm, the example is if (a < b) { function f() {} }, which isn't B.3.4 syntax (because of the outer braces) |
| 14:28 | <jmdyck> | So I'm thinking that that particular example is syntactically ok in strict mode and non-strict. |
| 15:15 | <sideshowbarker> | jmdyck: OK thanks yeah I suspected there was more subtlety to it than what that change captured |
| 15:16 | <jmdyck> | don't take my word for it though. |