TC39 General on 2024-02-09

05:25	<sirisian>	2 years later I remembered to type this up. Was thinking someone else was going to. Is there any issues with adding optional chaining to the LHS for statements as presented here: https://github.com/sirisian/optional-operators It does take up a lot of syntax so I kind of get why it wasn't considered early on. I'll make a post on es discourse if there's nothing obvious like parsing ambiguities.
05:55	<Justin Ridgewell>	2 years later I remembered to type this up. Was thinking someone else was going to. Is there any issues with adding optional chaining to the LHS for statements as presented here: https://github.com/sirisian/optional-operators It does take up a lot of syntax so I kind of get why it wasn't considered early on. I'll make a post on es discourse if there's nothing obvious like parsing ambiguities. There’s a Stage 1 proposal for that: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional-chaining-assignment
05:56	<sirisian>	I told myself to go check the stage 1 and figured there wasn't one. That's awesome to see.
07:29	<Jack Works>	I feel very excited about function decorators. It can improve DX when I write React. I used to write components like this (because function declaration has no evaluation step in the debugger) `export function C() {}`, but when I needed to `memo` it, I had to rewrite it to `export const C = () => {}` then `export const C = memo(() => {})`. If we have this, I can do this `export @memo function C() {}`
21:41	<sirisian>	nicolo-ribaudo: When you were working on the LHS optional chaining did having optional operators come up? (As a separate proposal). a.b ?+= 1 behavior where if b is undefined or null the nothing happens.
21:41	<littledan>	I feel very excited about function decorators. It can improve DX when I write React. I used to write components like this (because function declaration has no evaluation step in the debugger) `export function C() {}`, but when I needed to `memo` it, I had to rewrite it to `export const C = () => {}` then `export const C = memo(() => {})`. If we have this, I can do this `export @memo function C() {}` Can you elaborate on why this is better?
22:48	<Ashley Claymore>	One thing that is annoying with currently needing to do `export const Button = React.memo((props => { ... });` is that the function becomes anonymous. being able to do ``` @React.memo export function Button(props) { ... } ``` is easier to keep the name, and didn't need to rearrange the code to add the wrapper
23:09	<nicolo-ribaudo>	No, the optionality was only ever for property access
23:25	<Jack Works>	Can you elaborate on why this is better? I can add @memo directly, without having to convert function declaration into lexical declaration + function expression manually
23:26	<Jack Works>	(although I can do `C = memo(C)` but typescript won't be happy, I think `export function C` should not be reassigned)