| 09:01 | <yulia> | moving structured clone sounds like a great idea |
| 09:51 | <littledan> | moving structured clone sounds like a great idea |
| 15:47 | <Domenic> | I mainly just want to stop being on the hook for updating structured clone with new error types/builtins |
| 15:47 | <Domenic> | Like temporal objects are just not going to be structured cloneable I guess because I don't have the time to work on that |
| 15:47 | <Domenic> | An alternative would be if structured clone was explicitly remembered as a stage 3 cross-cutting concern criteria |
| 16:00 | <ptomato> | Domenic: I don't think you are on the hook for structured clone for Temporal objects? it was identified as a concern and there is a pull request for it: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/548 / https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6284 |
| 16:01 | <Jack Works> | https://github.com/Jack-Works/proposal-serializer |
| 16:01 | <Jack Works> | does anyone interested? |
| 16:01 | <Jack Works> | this is my try on the bringing user-extensible structured clone in to the language |
| 16:03 | <Domenic> | Domenic: I don't think you are on the hook for structured clone for Temporal objects? it was identified as a concern and there is a pull request for it: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/548 / https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6284 |
| 16:07 | <littledan> | we haven't written the PR for Record and Tuple structured clone, but it's definitely on our todo list https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/issues/45 |
| 16:08 | <littledan> | Being friendly to contributors is a great way to encourage more involvement and avoid maintainer burnout |
| 16:11 | <littledan> | Oh wow, somehow I totally missed that! Sorry, that's my bad. I was assuming the unfortunate precedent set by AggregateError/error.cause would carry over for temporal, but you did the right thing. |
| 16:13 | <littledan> | We're talking about the process for host integration in TC39 proposals at https://github.com/tc39/Reflector/issues/375 (sorry, delegates/IEs only) |
| 16:31 | <bakkot> |
shu suggested we might move the algorithm without exposing it directly in 262, at least initially, so it would just be a matter of making it the 262 editors' responsibility to handle ongoing maintenance for the JS parts of it; my hope was that this would alleviate Mark's concerns |
| 16:45 | <shu> | yes, the high order bit is to decouple any normative changes to JS wrt structured clone |
| 17:20 | <Domenic> | Aww https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/master/meetings/2020-06/june-4.md#generic-comparison is sad, I didn't realize the spaceship operator worked so poorly in JavaScript. I really like it as a unifying concept. |