00:04:46  * AtumTquit (Remote host closed the connection)
00:06:52  * darkSeid_quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
00:28:03  * abozhilovquit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
00:46:30  * wha121[m]joined
01:00:02  * marxo_quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
01:08:46  * marxo_joined
01:28:48  * jwaldenjoined
01:33:08  * M-IvanSanchezjoined
01:33:15  * Jasuruzakovgmailjoined
01:44:31  * marxo_quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
02:42:53  * jwaldenquit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.92-rdmsoft [XULRunner 35.0.1/20150122214805])
03:31:20  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
03:31:49  * caridyjoined
04:12:31  * gibson042quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
05:29:13  * jmdyckquit (Remote host closed the connection)
07:06:53  * bterlsonquit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
07:07:04  * mathiasbynensquit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
07:07:04  * TabAtkinsquit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
07:07:07  * wycatsquit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
07:07:08  * bterlsonjoined
07:07:28  * TabAtkinsjoined
07:07:30  * mathiasbynensjoined
07:07:48  * wycatsjoined
07:07:54  * annevkquit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
07:08:58  * basicdaysquit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
07:10:38  * annevkjoined
07:11:18  * basicdaysjoined
07:14:32  * Jasuruzakovgmailquit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
07:14:51  * M-IvanSanchezquit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
07:14:51  * wha121[m]quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
07:40:01  * gsathyaquit (Remote host closed the connection)
08:18:10  * howdoijoined
08:30:16  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
08:31:05  * caridyjoined
09:18:09  * Jasuruzakovgmailjoined
09:31:23  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
09:32:20  * caridyjoined
10:00:52  * soareschenquit (Quit: Leaving.)
10:01:23  * soareschenjoined
10:01:35  * soareschenquit (Client Quit)
10:02:48  * soareschenjoined
10:05:46  * M-IvanSanchezjoined
10:05:46  * wha121[m]joined
10:07:01  * soareschenquit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
10:33:21  * marxo_joined
11:19:01  * serbangjoined
11:19:36  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
11:20:32  * caridyjoined
11:25:12  * mylesborinsquit (Quit: farewell for now)
11:25:42  * mylesborinsjoined
11:55:24  * marxojoined
11:58:25  * marxo_quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
12:00:21  * marxo_joined
12:02:07  * marxoquit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
12:02:57  * marxo__joined
12:06:42  * marxo_quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
12:22:51  * marxo__quit (Quit: Leaving)
12:23:09  * marxojoined
12:38:42  * not-an-aardvarkquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
12:40:55  * jmdyckjoined
12:55:18  * marxo_joined
12:57:05  * marxoquit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
13:04:23  * marxojoined
13:06:40  * marxo_quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
13:08:43  * caridy_joined
13:08:44  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
13:09:02  * marxoquit (Remote host closed the connection)
13:09:20  * gsathyajoined
13:27:35  * howdoiquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
13:46:18  * AtumTjoined
13:51:06  * gibson042joined
14:21:51  * gibson042quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
14:36:37  * gibson042joined
14:56:42  * caridyjoined
14:56:42  * caridy_quit (Remote host closed the connection)
14:57:35  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
14:58:13  * caridyjoined
15:28:09  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
15:31:11  * caridyjoined
15:38:52  * howdoijoined
15:50:18  * soareschenjoined
15:52:48  * soareschenquit (Client Quit)
15:53:33  * soareschenjoined
16:08:10  * soareschenquit (Quit: Leaving.)
16:20:27  * jmdyckquit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
16:22:38  * jmdyckjoined
16:34:40  * soareschenjoined
16:37:07  * soareschenquit (Client Quit)
16:56:00  * jwaldenjoined
18:17:59  * AtumTquit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
18:18:47  * AtumTjoined
18:30:14  * AtumT_joined
18:30:57  * AtumTquit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
19:06:51  * not-an-aardvarkjoined
19:08:14  <bterlson>is it just me or are the first two bullets of 16.2 (https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-forbidden-extensions) contradictory?
19:08:39  <bterlson>(I think "or built-in" should be struck from the second bullet?)
19:27:45  <bterlson>jmdyck: ^ :-P
19:28:11  * jmdycklooks
19:29:50  <jmdyck>"syntactic constructors" ?
19:30:52  <bterlson>jmdyck: constructors created via syntax
19:30:56  <bterlson>it goes on to enumerate them I think
19:31:12  <jmdyck>no other use of that specific phrase in the spec
19:31:12  <bterlson>it's the last sentence though where I think the contradiction happens
19:31:21  <bterlson>yeah it's garbage ;)
19:31:39  <bterlson> Built-in functions, strict functions created using the Function constructor, generator functions created using the Generator constructor, async functions created using the AsyncFunction constructor, and functions created using the bind method also must not be created with such own properties.
19:31:57  <bterlson>followed by "If an implementation extends non-strict or built-in function objects..."
19:32:07  <bterlson>would be ok if we're in the business of saying "you can't do this, but if you do..." I guess?
19:42:02  <jmdyck>contradiction goes back a ways...
19:42:23  <bterlson>jmdyck: ahh I should have said that, I blamed all the way to the beginning of history :-P
19:44:32  <jmdyck>the occurrence of "built-in" in the second para is more recent
19:45:25  <jmdyck>second bullet
19:45:37  <bterlson>ahh I didn't blame that line, whoops
19:45:41  <bterlson>anything illuminating there?
19:46:01  <jmdyck>in 6r33, was just "If an implementation extends non-strict functions with..."
19:46:17  <jmdyck>then 6r34, "If an implementation extends non-strict mode or built-in function objects with..."
19:53:51  <jmdyck>release notes for rev 34 aren't very helpful
19:54:29  <bterlson>it seems contradictory on the surface at least yeah?
19:54:37  <bterlson>like I'm not missing something obvious
19:56:25  <jmdyck>yup, looks contradictory
20:00:11  <bterlson>jmdyck: strike "or built-in" from second bullet? :)
20:01:29  <jmdyck>well, except AWB seems to have put it in there deliberately
20:02:04  <bterlson>I'll make a PR and seek his comment I guess
20:02:21  <jmdyck>requirements tracing is terrible in the MS Word era.
20:02:57  <jmdyck>(The release notes have a list of resolved bugs, but it's rather large.)
20:05:14  <jmdyck>Hm, bug 1075 looks promising:
20:05:28  <jmdyck>[Bug 1075] ES5 forgot to specify safe .caller and .arguments behaviors for built-in functions
20:08:37  <jmdyck>http://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1075
20:09:28  <bterlson>isn't mark's bug addressed by saying built-in functions cannot have own caller and arguments properties?
20:09:39  <bterlson>what was the first bullet at that point?
20:10:08  <jmdyck>in 6r12?
20:13:27  <jmdyck>the bullets didn't exist as such in 6r12
20:17:51  * ChanServquit (shutting down)
20:18:32  <jmdyck>The "Forbidden Extensions" clause first appeared in 6r27.
20:20:17  <jmdyck>with the first bullet more-or-less as it is now.
20:22:42  <jmdyck>There wasn't an "If an implementation extends" bullet, but there was a para like that in section 9.2.1 [[GetOwnProperty]] (P)
20:24:18  * ChanServjoined
20:24:22  <jmdyck>It didn't become a bullet in the Forbidden clause until 6r34.
20:26:33  <jmdyck>6r34 was also when "or built-in function" was added to "If an implementation extends..."
20:31:39  <bterlson>jmdyck: allen replied, seems bogus :-P
20:31:59  <jmdyck>hmph
20:34:21  * jwaldenquit (Quit: it is, er, breakfast time; back soonish)
21:36:19  <bterlson>mathiasbynens: fyi, I worked a bit on reviewing your regexp proposals today
21:36:26  <bterlson>though much time was spent getting them to merge together cleanly
21:36:36  <mathiasbynens>bterlson: oooh!
21:36:37  <bterlson>I should have you review this, though not sure what the best way to do that is
21:36:44  <bterlson>separate PR maybe?
21:37:00  <mathiasbynens>heh, I guess
21:37:34  <bterlson>also keep in mind I rebased all your PRs
21:37:53  <bterlson>ljharb informed me that PRs tacitly give me such permissions which is pretty nice
21:38:06  <mathiasbynens>woah, that must’ve been a lot of work
21:38:34  <mathiasbynens>even just putting the PRs together (based on the proposals) was… intense
21:38:39  * jwaldenjoined
21:40:07  <bterlson>mathiasbynens: yeah it's hard
21:40:21  <bterlson>and actually I completely messed up the AtomEscape changes I realize, so gimme a bit and I'll put together a PR
21:40:47  <mathiasbynens>oh noooo!
21:41:07  * mathiasbynenssends good vibes && strength && courage
21:41:45  <mathiasbynens>dotAll + named captures got Stage 4 pending editor approval; does that mean we can potentially merge them already?
21:42:00  <bterlson>mathiasbynens: mathiasbynens that is my understanding
21:42:09  <mathiasbynens>\o/
21:43:15  <mathiasbynens>dotAll is a pretty safe one to merge
21:43:43  <mathiasbynens>the diff just doesn’t have that many lines that could trigger conflicts
21:43:49  <bterlson>yeah that one is safe
21:44:01  <bterlson>https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1029/files#diff-3540caefa502006d8a33cb1385720803L30181 vs. https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1027/files#diff-3540caefa502006d8a33cb1385720803L30178 is the one I just messed up
21:44:29  <bterlson>I kinda wanted to get them all together into one document and review the lot at once
21:45:08  * jwaldenquit (Quit: brb)
21:46:04  * jwaldenjoined
21:46:45  <bterlson>mathiasbynens: to confirm, BackreferenceMatcher is a straight up copy of those substeps yeah?
21:48:01  <bterlson>as in I just need to move the changes to this algorithm from lookbehinds into the new BackreferenceMatcher created by named capture groups
21:50:09  <mathiasbynens>yes, iiuc
21:50:24  <mathiasbynens>littledan can confirm ^
21:51:10  <bterlson>seems identical steps, just want to make sure I'm not missing some reason why the changes from lookbehinds is no longer valid with named capture groups
21:51:25  <mathiasbynens>are you preparing to merge these all together in one go?
21:52:01  <bterlson>At least to ensure there are no merge conflicts among them as part of the review process
21:52:16  <mathiasbynens>wouldn’t it be easier to merge the ones that already got stage 4, and then rebase the PRs on top of master?
21:52:32  <mathiasbynens>the remaining PRs*
21:52:39  <bterlson>for sure, but don't you want to know if the already stage 4 ones conflict with the remaining PRs?
21:53:09  <mathiasbynens>yes
21:53:14  <bterlson>seemed like a good idea to merge up a hypothetical "RegExp vNext spec" we can look through holistically
21:53:32  <mathiasbynens>but GitHub would tell us automatically, once dotAll + named captures get merged
21:53:58  <mathiasbynens>whatever is easiest for you!
21:54:04  <bterlson>this is harder, but I think it's better
21:54:12  <bterlson>I want to know before merging dotAll and named captures what trouble lies ahead ;)
21:54:21  <bterlson>ooh, and an anba reply
21:55:07  <bterlson>mathiasbynens: he wants https://github.com/tc39/proposal-regexp-named-groups/issues/34 resolved prior to merge
21:57:05  <bterlson>I'll be back in a few, thanks for the real-time collab mathiasbynens :)
21:59:27  * trysoundquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
22:03:00  <mathiasbynens>I’ll discuss this issue with Yang and Jakob on Monday
22:03:21  <mathiasbynens>but I’m in favor and hey, it matches both impls
22:03:43  <mathiasbynens>you ok with delaying this particular PR until next week?
23:15:00  <bterlson>mathiasbynens: yeah np, and agree w/ matching impls
23:46:46  * jwaldenquit (Quit: maybe back later, or if not see y'all Mondayish)