| 17:04 | <shu> | ystartsev: ping |
| 17:33 | <ystartsev> | hi shu |
| 17:33 | <ystartsev> | whats up |
| 17:34 | <shu> | ystartsev: i just wanted to confirm that FF will implement the cycleroot fix now and ask for consensus next meeting |
| 17:35 | <shu> | ystartsev: since chrome is shipping TLA to 89 stable, doing my due diligence before doing a backmerge into the stable branch |
| 17:35 | <ystartsev> | It is already implemented actually |
| 17:35 | <ystartsev> | so yes, that fix will be merged |
| 17:36 | <ystartsev> | the only open question I've got on my plate right now wrt top level await going to stage 4 in march is if we need to do this: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-top-level-await/pull/159 |
| 17:37 | <ystartsev> | this would be a normative change that we need consensus from the committee on -- part of the reason for this coming up is chrome and firefox diverge in their behavior with regards to multiple parents |
| 17:37 | <ystartsev> | idk if you already spent some time with the related issue: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-top-level-await/issues/158 |
| 17:37 | <shu> | ystartsev: which one does what right now? |
| 17:37 | <shu> | ystartsev: i have not spent time with either issue |
| 17:37 | <ystartsev> | v8 does this: |
| 17:38 | <shu> | ystartsev: first, are there 3 behaviors (FF behavior, Chrome behavior, and #159 behavior), or are there 2? |
| 17:38 | <shu> | #159 behavior = proposed #159 behavior |
| 17:38 | <ystartsev> | yep that is right, they are all divergent |
| 17:38 | <shu> | ha |
| 17:39 | <shu> | okay, then we don't need to go through it now |
| 17:39 | <ystartsev> | so i want to investigate if there is a bug in ff code that would get the expected behavior -- if not, if the expected behavior violates the web platform tests, and if not if it nakes sense |
| 17:39 | <shu> | we can wait a release to converge |
| 17:39 | <ystartsev> | yeah, I kinda want to deal with 159 after stage 4... i will work on that tomorrow, today got packed with other work pretty quickly |
| 17:39 | <shu> | this part of the V8 code implements the spec quite literally |
| 17:39 | <shu> | and it sounds like in SM as well |
| 17:39 | <shu> | so it might be a spec thing |
| 17:39 | <ystartsev> | yeah same with us |
| 17:39 | <ystartsev> | well, the cycle root thing was a bug |
| 17:40 | <shu> | right |
| 17:40 | <ystartsev> | on my todo for tomorrow is to re-execute 159 on the fixed version and see what happens |
| 17:40 | <ystartsev> | anyway -- to answer your first question i think you are probably in a good position |
| 17:40 | <shu> | okay, cool |
| 17:40 | <ystartsev> | if 159 significantly changes behavior from the existing spec, we have a problem anyway and it would need to be discussed |
| 17:41 | <shu> | yep, sounds reasonable. thanks for the confirmation, have a good night! |
| 17:41 | <ystartsev> | cheers! |
| 18:59 | <TabAtkins> | ystartsev, ljharb: I've done some decent edits to the proposal i linked y'all to, in case you read it immediately after the meeting (or have it open to read later) |
| 19:08 | <TabAtkins> | "decent" meaning minor (no large-scale restructuring), but still, if you were looking at something and thinking something was missing/inconsistent, hopefully it's no longer so |
| 19:27 | <ljharb> | thanks, will take a look |
| 22:39 | <sffc> | I'm trying to use Matrix but I'm getting errors when I try sending messages. The web inspector says: "Error sending event Error: Failed to execute 'transaction' on 'IDBDatabase': The database connection is closing." Anyone else having this problem? |
| 22:42 | <sffc> | Hmm, I can post in #tc39-general:matrix.org but I can't send IMs |