| 18:07 | <jugglinmike> | bakkot: I'd like to recommend some modifications to TR/104. Do you know who I can talk to about that? |
| 18:41 | <bakkot> | jugglinmike: I would guess that it's owned by TC39 as a whole, so the way to modify it is probably to present a proposal to the committee in plenary asking for consensus for the modification |
| 18:42 | <bakkot> | But I don't actually know for certain; TR/104 hasn't been updated in a while, so I'm not as familiar with what the process ought to be |
| 18:45 | <jugglinmike> | Thanks! I think I'll ping the chairs, as well, just to be sure |
| 20:52 | <jschoi> | Does anyone have insight into why Generator and AsyncFunction were made separate types from Function? |
| 20:53 | <bakkot> | what does "separate types" mean |
| 20:54 | <bakkot> | if you just mean "exist as separate objects", Generator objects need to inherit from the Generator prototype to have .next, which should not be on regular functions |
| 20:55 | <bakkot> | also, they allow you to dynamically construct a generator or async function from source text, although doing so is ev[ai]l and should be shunned |
| 21:06 | <jschoi> | Ah, yeah, right—.next. And yeah, that’s what I meant.Was AsyncFunction separated as a separate type from Function just to parallel Generator? |
| 21:07 | <bakkot> | well, there's also the use as a constructor thing |
| 21:10 | <jschoi> | Makes sense. |