| 22:42 | <ljharb> | rkirsling: mind rebasing https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1860 ? |
| 22:45 | <rkirsling> | ljharb: sure |
| 22:46 | <ljharb> | thanks |
| 22:46 | <ljharb> | (implied is, please make sure any interim changes are updated) |
| 22:47 | <rkirsling> | but of course :) |
| 22:49 | <ljharb> | <3 |
| 23:26 | <rkirsling> | hmm so |
| 23:26 | <rkirsling> | (sorry for delay) |
| 23:26 | <rkirsling> | there's only one new instance of `<built-in>` constructor but |
| 23:27 | <rkirsling> | there are a couple of places with `<built-in>` object, where I claimed in the PR description that that wasn't the case |
| 23:28 | <rkirsling> | I wonder if I should deal with the third paragraph here as well? |
| 23:28 | <rkirsling> | https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-ecmascript-overview |
| 23:28 | <rkirsling> | otherwise the PR currently claims to just deal with "~ constructor" and "~ behavior" cases so I could leave it |
| 23:29 | <ljharb> | seems ok to leave it for now |
| 23:29 | <rkirsling> | kk |
| 23:31 | <rkirsling> | just gonna deal with one obvious case of "an `Error` object" |
| 23:40 | <rkirsling> | ljharb: 'tis done |
| 23:42 | <ljharb> | great, thanks! |