00:03:31  * not-an-aardvarkquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
00:17:05  <littledan>jmdyck: Thanks for your help!
00:17:11  <jmdyck>yw
00:21:45  <jmdyck>to be clear, I suggested "types" -> "artefacts" when the subject of the sentence was "parse trees". If the subject is "Parse Nodes", then "types" makes more sense than it did. (Although I'd put it in the singular: "Parse Node is a specification type.") But all that aside, I think the sentence is fine as is.
00:23:31  <jmdyck>+1'd your latest comment. Was going to say so myself.
00:23:52  <jmdyck>afk
00:31:31  * AtumTquit (Remote host closed the connection)
01:01:38  * gskachkovquit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
01:45:11  <jmdyck>bak
03:38:54  <jmdyck>littledan: thanks for link to add-object-rest-spread. Not sure how I didn't arrive there before.
03:38:55  * not-an-aardvarkjoined
04:13:44  * caridyjoined
04:41:12  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
05:03:14  * jmdyckquit (Remote host closed the connection)
05:28:48  * gibson042joined
07:41:36  * gibson042quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
07:46:26  * gskachkovjoined
07:56:23  * gskachkovquit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
07:56:32  * gskachkovjoined
08:33:11  * gskachkovquit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
09:31:28  <keithamus>jmdyck AFAIK `-ize` is a mispelling in the UK. If someone from the UK spells `organised` as `organized` it is a mispelling, maybe an americanism
09:32:05  <keithamus>oh he left
09:32:17  <keithamus>s/he/they
10:28:36  * not-an-aardvarkquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
11:19:26  * AtumTjoined
11:25:11  * mylesborinsquit (Quit: farewell for now)
11:25:42  * mylesborinsjoined
13:03:59  * jmdyckjoined
14:16:35  * bradleymeckjoined
14:45:08  * bradleymeckquit (Quit: bradleymeck)
14:58:13  * bradleymeckjoined
14:58:43  * caridyjoined
14:58:49  * gibson042joined
14:59:32  * bradleymeckquit (Client Quit)
15:00:13  * bradleymeckjoined
15:03:17  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
15:03:56  * caridyjoined
15:04:19  * bradleymeckquit (Client Quit)
15:09:15  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
15:17:45  * caridyjoined
15:18:47  * caridyquit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
15:18:55  * caridyjoined
15:29:10  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
15:29:43  * caridyjoined
15:33:32  * bradleymeckjoined
15:51:23  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
15:52:11  * caridyjoined
15:52:31  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
15:52:47  * caridyjoined
15:53:00  * caridyquit (Remote host closed the connection)
15:53:50  * caridyjoined
16:34:15  * keith_millerjoined
16:44:20  * srl295joined
16:58:38  * bradleymeckquit (Quit: bradleymeck)
17:04:01  * gibson042quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
17:18:59  * gibson042joined
17:35:52  * bradleymeckjoined
17:45:37  * keith_millerquit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
17:58:31  * keith_millerjoined
18:05:45  * jmdyckquit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
18:07:45  * jmdyckjoined
18:21:53  * jwaldenjoined
19:05:47  * keith_millerquit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
19:11:33  * keith_millerjoined
20:11:36  * jwaldenquit (Quit: back in 20)
20:20:16  * bradleymeckquit (Quit: bradleymeck)
20:33:14  * jwaldenjoined
20:51:46  * keith_mi_joined
20:53:01  * keith_millerquit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
21:09:33  * bradleymeckjoined
21:36:46  * not-an-aardvarkjoined
21:43:22  <ljharb>the spec doesn't mandate specific error messages; however, https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=809214 seems like it might be making it observable that `new Set(truthyNonIterable)` and `for (const key of truthyNonIterable) {}` aren't going down the same code path; and one potential reading of the spec mandates that they do (that they throw the same TypeError exception). thoughts?
21:44:49  * gkatsev_changed nick to gkatsev
21:50:20  <bradleymeck>ljharb: I think differing error messages probably are fine / might allow for better error messages in contexts
21:50:38  <bradleymeck>If we had to return the exact same reference like ESM errors I'd want them to be the same surely
21:54:22  <ljharb>yeah that's true
21:54:32  <ljharb>in this specific case, it's preventing a better error message, it seems
22:24:02  <bradleymeck>ljharb: preventing better error messages, or just v8 doesn't have good error messages
22:24:32  <bradleymeck>i think if you mandate the messages be the same you couldn't state that one is coming from a for loop, and one is coming from a function argument
22:27:42  <ljharb>that's totally true
22:27:56  <ljharb>ok, i'm convinced that this is just a poor error message :-) thanks for the thought experiment