02:03:29  * not-an-aardvarkquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
03:27:23  * bradleymeckjoined
03:44:13  * Draggorjoined
04:18:38  * not-an-aardvarkjoined
04:22:14  * caridyjoined
04:43:19  * gibson042quit (Remote host closed the connection)
04:50:46  * AndrewPinkertonjoined
04:51:24  * AndrewPinkertonquit (Client Quit)
04:56:06  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
06:10:54  * gkatsev_joined
06:15:33  * evilpiequit (*.net *.split)
06:15:34  * gkatsevquit (*.net *.split)
06:57:47  * not-an-aardvarkquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
07:12:36  * keith_millerjoined
07:23:30  * evilpiejoined
07:24:45  * jmdyck1quit (Remote host closed the connection)
07:44:09  * keith_millerquit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
08:14:09  * bradleymeckquit (Quit: bradleymeck)
11:25:10  * mylesborinsquit (Quit: farewell for now)
11:25:41  * mylesborinsjoined
11:31:52  * Jayfluxjoined
11:31:52  * Jayfluxquit (Changing host)
11:31:52  * Jayfluxjoined
12:27:29  * gskachkovjoined
12:49:37  * AtumTjoined
13:06:09  * Jayfluxquit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
13:11:52  * Ukarijoined
13:12:26  * bradleymeckjoined
13:14:42  <Ukari>I upload a proposal as non-member of Ecma International in end of last year, but get no reponse
13:15:22  <Ukari>would it come into stage-0 or just sliently refused
13:16:38  * AtumTquit (Remote host closed the connection)
13:23:50  <bradleymeck>Ukari: a member of ECMA / TC39 would need to champion whatever the proposal is to get it to go through the staging process.
13:24:35  <bradleymeck>So, it isn't refused but probably no one picked it up. If you point me to the proposal I might be able to route it to someone who I think is in that area of interest.
13:27:00  <Ukari>how could i point you to this, should i just say yes or follow some commonly flow?
13:28:35  <bradleymeck>Ukari: you can just link to your proposal wherever it is.
13:29:10  <bradleymeck>https://github.com/ukari/javascript-let-decorators ?
13:29:16  <Ukari>yes
13:33:09  <bradleymeck>well I think this probably won't be moving anywhere until the existing decorators proposal lands
13:33:38  <bradleymeck>the decorators proposal has been trying to lnad for a long time, and I think parties interested in it are not seeking to add more similar features until it manages to land
13:35:10  <Ukari>i want it into proposal 0 so that i could put it into babel, bit it seems what i could do now is just waiting
13:35:20  <Ukari>thanks for you help
13:35:26  <bradleymeck>I do think this proposal would probably need to add more features to be competitive, since the pipeline operator also lets you do a similar kind of work
13:36:10  <Ukari>pipeline opertor, do you mean |> ?
13:37:55  <Ukari>i have saw that proposal, i think it's style should be work with data transfer but not meta describe
13:40:09  * jmdyckjoined
13:40:22  <bradleymeck>Ukari: your proposal only works with data when I looked at the transform, is it intended to have more hooks than just the initializer?
13:42:58  <Ukari>no, in my blog router it play a role of IoC annotation, i guess it is the scene where it is suitable
13:44:13  <Ukari>https://tinyurl.com/y9crzpk8
13:50:51  * bradleymeckquit (Quit: bradleymeck)
13:56:55  * bradleymeckjoined
14:13:56  * Ukariquit (Quit: bye bye)
14:31:08  * Jayfluxjoined
15:11:06  * AtumTjoined
15:34:13  * Jayfluxquit (Quit: Leaving)
15:38:44  * bradleymeckquit (Quit: bradleymeck)
16:01:10  * jmdyck1joined
16:01:17  * jmdyckquit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
16:56:34  * gskachkovquit (Quit: gskachkov)
16:58:24  * gskachkovjoined
17:03:19  * gskachkovquit (Quit: gskachkov)
17:14:36  * gskachkovjoined
17:27:59  * jmdyck1quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
17:28:12  * jmdyckjoined
17:36:44  * bradleymeckjoined
17:51:00  * Ukarijoined
17:51:12  * Ukariquit (Client Quit)
18:34:31  * gskachkovquit (Quit: gskachkov)
18:38:50  * gskachkovjoined
18:48:33  * gskachkovquit (Quit: gskachkov)
18:49:30  * gskachkovjoined
19:03:06  * gskachkovquit (Quit: gskachkov)
19:03:54  * gskachkovjoined
19:18:01  * gskachkovquit (Quit: gskachkov)
19:28:44  * gskachkovjoined
20:14:22  * bradleymeckquit (Quit: )
20:23:49  * not-an-aardvarkjoined
20:40:04  * gibson042joined
20:43:26  * keith_millerjoined
20:45:43  * bradleymeckjoined
21:00:23  * keith_millerquit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
21:50:39  * bradleymeckquit (Quit: bradleymeck)
22:17:43  <jmdyck>littledan: ?
22:18:49  <littledan>jmdyck: You don't see it here? https://github.com/keithamus/ecma262/tree/add-object-rest-spread
22:19:18  <littledan>I've cloned it locally before. What's the issue you're running into?
22:19:22  <jmdyck>hmwha? I was getting your attention for something else.
22:19:55  <littledan>what are you trying to get my attention for?
22:20:02  <littledan>(I was responding to your git question above)
22:20:07  <jmdyck>(ah right)
22:21:38  <jmdyck>When bterlson said "Seems fine, though I vaguely prefer my proposed copy." and you said "I'm not sure where to find it to review it, if it's uploaded somewhere.", I think he just meant what he said in earlier comment: "Note that parse trees are specification types and implementations are not required to use an analogous data structure."
22:22:01  <littledan>jmdyck: Oh, thanks. I'll change the patch to this
22:22:39  <jmdyck>Strictly speaking "parse trees" aren't spec types. Rather Parse Nodes are.
22:22:57  <jmdyck>(or actually spec values)
22:23:46  <littledan>jmdyck: How do you think this should be organized--adding another section to describe parse nodes, but in little detail, leaving most of the description in 5.1.4?
22:23:58  <jmdyck>but you could say that parse trees are specification 'artifacts'
22:24:11  <jmdyck>Hm
22:24:43  <littledan>...how are other spec types also not specification artifacts?
22:25:04  <jmdyck>spec types are spec artifacts, but not all spec artifacts are spec types?
22:25:13  <littledan>...sure
22:25:56  <littledan>I'll write this patch however you all want me to write it! It's hard for me to understand the various constraints people have about what's clear wording here.
22:26:20  <littledan>Ukari: Thanks for writing up that proposal. I'm sorry you had a hard time getting ahold of us. I think we need to improve our process for externally contributed proposals.
22:27:05  <littledan>What would you all think of making a new mailing list or GitHub discussion forum, which is moderated, and where you can post things to raise attention and get more feedback on GitHub? could be for both new proposals and issues on existing proposals.
22:28:39  <littledan>Ukari: This, together with function decorators, seems like a natural follow-on proposal. Personally, I wouldn't oppose going to Stage 1 with something like this, but I'd rather not include it in the main decorators proposal itself.
22:29:35  <littledan>Ukari: This sort of syntax has been proposed as a way to get around the lack of function decorators. Is this part of what you were imagining here?
22:29:46  * gibson042quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
22:30:43  <jmdyck>littledan: looking at commit from 8 minutes ago now...
22:31:10  <jmdyck>It should be a separate note.
22:31:28  <littledan>Ukari: Note that object decorators are not yet at a TC39 stage. Also, you may want to add decorators to const statements
22:31:39  <littledan>jmdyck: OK, I'll make that change. Any more suggestions?
22:31:46  <jmdyck>maybe, still thinking
22:36:09  <jmdyck>yeah, I think slightly better to change "are specification types" to "are specification artefacts" (which is apparently the UK spelling, used elsewhere in the spec for pretty much this purpose, e.g. in "ECMAScript Specification Types")
22:37:17  <ljharb>i thought we'd standardized on US spellings (ie, "artifacts")
22:37:28  <jmdyck>(the word "analogous" strikes me as odd there, but I'm not sure why or what would be better.)
22:38:17  <jmdyck>5 occurrences of "artefact", 0 of "artifact".
22:39:29  <ljharb>sure; i think there's still a number of UK spellings that haven't yet been converted
22:40:17  <jmdyck>there was a big thing of changing -ise to -ize, but i vaguely recall that someone claimed that -ize was still UK spelling
22:41:13  <jmdyck>(... so it wasn't a UK->US shift)
22:43:32  <ljharb>hm
22:43:45  <ljharb>if `-ize` is UK spelling then who spells it `-ise`
22:44:29  <jmdyck>UK too probably. I don't even want to look it up.
22:45:02  <ljharb>lol k
22:46:40  <ljharb>i mean, we have US spellings, like `color`, and UK, like `centre`. it seems inconsistent.
22:48:59  <jmdyck>re "how should this be organized": I say don't do anything. Even just adding the note about specification artefactyness is unnecessary to the point of your PR. Re-organizing the spec is *way* beyond.
22:49:29  <jmdyck>Someone who would prefer a different org is welcome to suggest one in a separate issue/PR.
22:49:39  <littledan>are we doing Canada spellings?
22:50:28  <jmdyck>The current org has been there for a year, appeared in ES 2017. Doesn't make sense to change it as a byproduct of your PR.
23:03:47  <jmdyck>But for the general question: there are lots of spec types that don't appear in 6.2.
23:04:32  <littledan>jmdyck: What's an example of another one?
23:04:57  <jmdyck>hm, will have to do some digging.
23:06:19  <jmdyck>CharSet, for one.
23:06:47  <jmdyck>There are various 'enumeration' types.
23:08:43  <jmdyck>Execution Contexts
23:09:30  <jmdyck>There are some obscure ones that you might not even consider to be types,
23:10:01  <jmdyck>but i'm thinking of any value that can be bound to a metavariable.
23:10:20  <jmdyck>which includes some ad hoc stuff
23:11:26  <jmdyck>afk