| 14:32 | <annevk> | Is Object Type supposed to be Object type? |
| 14:33 | <annevk> | Also, Undefined type and Null type are not in italics? |
| 15:22 | <bakkot> | annevk: the italics are because it's a definition |
| 15:23 | <bakkot> | the capital letter is probably a mistake; it was until yesterday in a header, where it was capitalized for that reason |
| 15:25 | <bakkot> | https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3086 |
| 15:25 | <annevk> | bakkot: okay, so why are Undefined and Null type not defined? |
| 15:26 | <bakkot> | probably because we don't actually use them as terms |
| 15:26 | <bakkot> | but they could be |
| 15:27 | <annevk> | I don't have a need per se, just seemed inconsistent |
| 15:28 | <annevk> | Though maybe if we do more reconciliation across JS/Infra/IDL it could help, TBD |
| 15:50 | <jmdyck> | There are a few uses of Undefined and Null, generally where the context forces the use of a type name rather than just referring to *undefined* or *null*. |
| 16:06 | <Michael Ficarra> | since they're single-inhabitant types, there's no need for us to refer to the type when we can just list all the inhabitants, which our syntax for describing types in the spec makes trivial |