| 00:47 | <Domenic> | bakkot: Seems somewhat reasonable, although I'd be especially happy if someone could do the analysis for all similar web platform methods. I think that would be: byobStreamReader.read(), textEncoder.encodeInto(), maybe crypto.getRandomValues()? |
| 04:40 | <annevk> | zcorpan: well, I think if we rewrote that to use "constructor steps" we'd use the relevant settings object of this, but you're correct that it'll be 1:1 with the current settings object |
| 06:57 | <annevk> | bakkot: how does that work, exactly? If you pass in too big a string encodeInto() would end up growing the buffer? Can that be overloaded or would that some new signature? |
| 06:58 | <annevk> | bakkot: anyway, seems worthwhile to write it down in a bit more detail in an issue. Might take a while, but it's always good to have ideas recorded in a logical place |
| 17:30 | <annevk> | Private fields don't work on derived classes? Am I missing something? |
| 17:31 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Instance private fields work, static private fields only work if you access them using ClassName.#priv and not this.#priv (even from static methods) |
| 17:33 | <annevk> | nicolo-ribaudo: oh, maybe you can't declare them in the constructor? And I confused enclosing class with parent class, hmm |
| 17:33 | <annevk> | Ok, good if so |
| 17:35 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | You can only declare them outside of the constructor, using the fields syntax |
| 17:36 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | If you want the inner class to have the same private fields as the outer one, that's not possible (even if you re-use the same name, it's a different "private key") |
| 17:48 | <jub0bs> | freddy: No problem! Thanks. I'll shoot you an email on Thursday. |
| 17:55 | <freddy> | Thursday is a holiday in Germany. I'll likely take a look on Monday then ;D |