| 03:14 | <snek> | does anyone know if its legal to duplicate bcp 47 language tags |
| 03:15 | <snek> | chrome supports it and firefox doesn't |
| 03:19 | <snek> | actually weirdly firefox doesn't like it but spidermonkey cli is fine with it |
| 03:51 | <rkirsling> | |
| 08:13 | <sirisian> | So I kind of get "Only the construct being decorated may be changed in its contents", but has anyone pointed out how awkward it makes this example: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decorators#access-and-metadata-sidechanneling In this example, "injectable" only exists because field decorators don't know their class. That example is basically how all serialization libraries work and seems like an example you'd want to keep as elegant as possible. |
| 13:41 | <Mathieu Hofman> | The awkwardness is why https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decorator-metadata exists |
| 15:39 | <ryzokuken> | does anyone know if its legal to duplicate bcp 47 language tags |
| 15:40 | <ryzokuken> | But the last one wins |
| 15:40 | <snek> | last one does not win in any engine I tried |
| 15:46 | <ryzokuken> | Wait, does the first win then? |
| 15:52 | <snek> | so it would seem |
| 15:52 | <snek> | I havent tried more than two though |
| 15:52 | <snek> | could be middle wins |
| 15:56 | <ryzokuken> | so it would seem |
| 15:56 | <ryzokuken> | For consistency |
| 15:57 | <snek> | Hm, I'll have to recheck that we use those exact semantics for the timestamp draft |
| 15:57 | <snek> | unless it doesn't say |
| 15:57 | <snek> | in which case do last wins |