| 09:11 | <nox> | Was it ever considered to change [Constructor] to the constructor syntax of ES classes? So that constructors can themselves have WebIDL extended attributes without nesting them? |
| 09:46 | <annevk> | nox: there’s an issue on that |
| 14:05 | <Ms2ger> | Is there a way to write `new x(...args)` without ...? |
| 14:06 | <jgraham> | does .call work here? |
| 14:07 | <gsnedders> | no, it doesn't |
| 14:07 | <gsnedders> | (because .call calls [[Call]], not [[Construct]]) |
| 17:28 | <Domenic> | Reflect.construct() |
| 17:41 | <Domenic> | Yay, blob: URLs continue to get better... that was like five issues closed. |
| 18:48 | <Domenic> | annevk: starting to go through my review backlog... it looks like https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/4284 has a front-line reviewer, so ping me when that's ready for a pass from me. |
| 19:30 | <Domenic> | domfarolino: is https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/4031 ready for another round of review? Seems possible but the commit message is just about "low-hanging fruit" :) |
| 19:58 | <domfarolino> | Domenic: Ah, I think not quite yet, there should be a bit more I can do wrt moving some steps around; will let you know asap |
| 19:59 | <Domenic> | Great, no rush |
| 21:15 | <TimothyGu> | annevk: by https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1401#issuecomment-454012277 do you mean like the platform objects in Web IDL |
| 21:16 | <TimothyGu> | also "I think even has some dynamic slots" do you have examples? |
| 21:20 | <annevk> | TimothyGu: ah, I was thinking of serializing/deserializing Records, not objects |
| 21:20 | <annevk> | TimothyGu: for where we add slots on the fly |
| 21:20 | <TimothyGu> | yeah Records can do that |
| 21:21 | <annevk> | TimothyGu: with the other thing I meant platform objects but also deserializing prose |
| 21:21 | <annevk> | TimothyGu: oh really? |
| 21:22 | <TimothyGu> | annevk: yeah. like a lot of times Property Descriptor Records are not actually completely filled |
| 21:22 | <TimothyGu> | and they get filled later |
| 21:23 | <TimothyGu> | But I feel like that change is just a ECMA-262 consistency improvement; nothing is really changed changed for IDL objects |
| 22:02 | <Domenic> | +1, I think it's fine to land as-is instead of scope-creeping to a larger HTML/Web IDL cleanup project :) |