00:01
<ljharb>
well yes, ofc :-)
01:06
<keith_miller>
ljharb: Is there anything I need to do to get my PR landed?
01:06
<keith_miller>
Or is it waiting on someone more reviews?
01:06
keith_miller
doesn't know the process that well
01:08
<rkirsling>
looks like it's effectively on the docket for merge
01:15
<shu>
ljharb: yes, i think when the benefits of undoing a mistake is undeniable
01:15
<shu>
ljharb: but in the case of disallowing \8 and \9
01:15
<shu>
i mean, i don't _like_ it
01:15
<shu>
but who runs into that?
01:20
<devsnek>
my billion dollar business will topple to the ground if \8 isn't handled correctly
01:21
<keith_miller>
devsnek: I can fix that in JSC... for a price
01:21
<keith_miller>
:P
01:21
<devsnek>
🤑
01:24
<shu>
i'll fix it for $5 less than what keith charges
01:24
<keith_miller>
I'm charging $4 so you owe devsnek a $
01:25
<devsnek>
i approve of this
01:25
<shu>
have you learned nothing from VC-funded wealth
01:25
<shu>
i lose $ now, and maybe i'll keep losing $ for 5 years
01:25
<shu>
but one day i'll go public once i have cornered the \8 market
01:26
<keith_miller>
shu: How's Google going to feel that you've cornered one third of their \/8 market?
01:27
<shu>
whoa whoa nobody said that
01:27
<rkirsling>
lol
01:27
<shu>
the logs need to be scrubbed
01:27
<devsnek>
i didn't see nothin'
01:30
<keith_miller>
lol
01:30
<rkirsling>
isn't it two-thirds though
01:30
<rkirsling>
or am I misinterpreting the joke
01:31
<keith_miller>
Yeah my b
01:31
<keith_miller>
Gotta work fast
02:07
<ljharb>
keith_miller: generally once 3 editors have stamped it and it has no X’s, i merge it within a few hours
02:08
<ljharb>
keith_miller: so in this case it needs one more editor to stamp it
02:08
<keith_miller>
🤞
02:08
<keith_miller>
Thanks
02:08
<ljharb>
shu: lol true but like, the future is longer than the past, and $1000 to merely make something more consistent sounds worth it to me
02:09
<ljharb>
I’ve spent more money on far more inconsequential things
19:30
<rkirsling>
what is the idea of having NotEscapeSequence be an escape sequence for tagged templates?
19:31
<rkirsling>
like, it would be one thing if it gave you the raw characters
19:48
<rkirsling>
er well TV is `undefined` so I guess saying it "is an escape sequence" is a stretch, but still
19:53
<Bakkot>
rkirsling I don't understand the question
19:54
<Bakkot>
do you mean, why does the grammar talk about those at all? It's so String.raw`\xGG` works.
20:09
<rkirsling>
ah hm
20:11
<rkirsling>
but it seems like foo`...` is neither
20:11
<Bakkot>
is neither what?
20:12
<rkirsling>
neither a raw \ nor an error
20:15
<Bakkot>
tthere's no backslash there?
20:15
<Bakkot>
why would you expect a `\`
20:15
<rkirsling>
sorry I didn't mean literally ...
20:15
<rkirsling>
I'm just really confused, partially because engines aren't agreeing
20:15
<Bakkot>
can you give a concrete example?
20:15
<rkirsling>
foo`\8`
20:16
<rkirsling>
is the main point
20:16
<Bakkot>
that looks like a NotEscapeSequence to me
20:16
<rkirsling>
yeah so JSC just has undefined
20:16
<Bakkot>
undefined is correct per spec, pretty sure
20:16
<rkirsling>
(other engines just escape the `8`)
20:16
<rkirsling>
yeah
20:16
<rkirsling>
I believe so
20:17
<Bakkot>
"The TV of TemplateCharacter::\NotEscapeSequence is undefined."
20:17
<rkirsling>
I was just saying that I'm surprised that it's neither an error (like an untagged template) nor raw characters (meaning that String.raw is not something you can make in userland)
20:18
<Bakkot>
oh, you get the raw characters
20:18
<Bakkot>
they're on the `.raw` property of the array
20:18
<Bakkot>
that's how tagged templates work in general
20:19
<rkirsling>
ohh
20:20
<rkirsling>
thanks
20:52
<shu>
my honey?
20:52
<shu>
what does that mean
20:52
<shu>
oops, wrong window :P
21:28
<ljharb>
rofl
21:35
<drousso>
🤣
22:37
<shu>
i could try to explain, but i think that'll only make things worse