14:30
<Kris Kowal>
I plan to attend the Module Harmony call today, but will not be able to speak due to a very temporary but inconvenient illness.
14:33
<Kris Kowal>
I believe we need to talk about our intentions regarding advancement, particularly for First-class Module and ModuleSource (from Compartments: Layer 0) and Module Blocks. In my opinion, we should ask for Stage 2 for Module and ModuleSource constructors. I don’t have strong feelings about coupling with Module Blocks (I think Nicolò has done good work keeping the proposals loosely coupled) but I do share @ljharb’s opinion that it would be exceedingly weird if Module Blocks landed and we never managed to pull Module Constructor over the line, since that would leave us with an always-throws Module constructor indefinitely.
14:35
<Kris Kowal>
And I do like to continue framing these proposals as ordered incremental advancements, just for sake of reviewability, but if folks overwhelmingly wanted to mix them in a big pot, I wouldn’t resist.
14:36
<Kris Kowal>
I would like to convince @caridy that he or we should put Layer 0 on the agenda for A Coruña.
14:59
<shu>
i cannot attend today, might be checking out some wasm in-person cg stuff this week
15:12
<nicolo-ribaudo>
I believe we need to talk about our intentions regarding advancement, particularly for First-class Module and ModuleSource (from Compartments: Layer 0) and Module Blocks. In my opinion, we should ask for Stage 2 for Module and ModuleSource constructors. I don’t have strong feelings about coupling with Module Blocks (I think Nicolò has done good work keeping the proposals loosely coupled) but I do share @ljharb’s opinion that it would be exceedingly weird if Module Blocks landed and we never managed to pull Module Constructor over the line, since that would leave us with an always-throws Module constructor indefinitely.
I agree: I don't think the proposals should be too copuled, but I don't want to have a future JavaScript with just module blocks and with Layer 0 objected.
15:13
<nicolo-ribaudo>
Well, I guess if that unfortunate case happens we could make new Module accept a string, after being certain that Layer 0 cannot advance as-is
15:15
<nicolo-ribaudo>
I'm not feeling well too, so I'm not sure if I will attend (but I started not feeling well suddenly, so it might end suddenly soon, who knows) EDIT: I'll join
16:04
<littledan>
I also can't attend today, sorry
16:04
<littledan>
I agree: I don't think the proposals should be too copuled, but I don't want to have a future JavaScript with just module blocks and with Layer 0 objected.
Hmm, I guess I wouldn't mind this end state
17:23
<Kris Kowal>
I was unable to find an issue regarding Module.prototype.import, so I’ve created one https://github.com/tc39/proposal-compartments/issues/85