07:50
<annevk>
[Exposed] works on methods, but only to constrain. So the solution would be to move setTimeout to an AllTheGlobals mixin that has [Exposed=*] and is included by Window, WorkerGlobalScope, etc.
15:41
<tolmasky>
Is there a term that means symbols + objects (+ functions, although thats implied by objects). Like there's primitives vs. objects, I'm wondering if theres a concise way to say "symbols and objects"
15:45
<nicolo-ribaudo>
In the R&T proposal we say "unforgeable values": you cannot recreate them unless you already hold a reference to them
15:45
<nicolo-ribaudo>
However, it does not include Symbol.for symbols
15:46
<tolmasky>
interesting
16:16
<bakkot>
tolmasky: "value with identity" https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/notational-conventions.html#sec-identity
16:17
<bakkot>
though that also covers spec-internal values, but outside the context of the spec that's probably fine
17:09
<ljharb>
ftr i'm not a fan of using "identity" in that way, but that's what the editors chose. i'd just say "symbols and objects" personally (outside the spec)
18:01
<TabAtkins>
"reference types" is how I refer to them to myself
18:01
<TabAtkins>
vs value types
18:02
<TabAtkins>
and i'm certain i'm making, like, some c++ people cringe for that
18:31
<tolmasky>
haha
18:31
<tolmasky>
chatgpt suggested reference types
18:51
<ljharb>
lol yeah, they are kind of "reference values" but so many people mistakenly think JS is pass by reference that i think the word "reference" would cause way more confusion than it'd clear up
19:59
<Mathieu Hofman>
Yeah reference types is too confusing given that unique symbols are a primitive with unforgeable identity, but registered symbols (the same type) do have a forgeable identity.
20:00
<Mathieu Hofman>
We should find a good name as I expect unique symbols to not stay the only special case of unforgeable values.
20:00
<Mathieu Hofman>
(aka we'll ultimately get some kind of composite identity, whether that's records/tuples as currently proposed or a separate proposal)
20:07
<TabAtkins>
"ocap types"
21:10
<Mathieu Hofman>
lol, that would probably be too obscure for most people ;)