00:15:13  * not-an-aardvarkquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
00:31:33  * AtumTquit (Remote host closed the connection)
00:55:27  <devsnek>is this `value === new function() { return value }` a real thing that people do
00:55:36  <devsnek>for "isObject"
00:58:07  <Bakkot>no.
01:01:11  <devsnek>someone posted that as their "favourite way" in the es-modules mailing list
01:01:27  <devsnek>made me do a double take
01:34:37  * srl295quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
02:20:37  * not-an-aardvarkjoined
06:08:23  <ljharb>devsnek: nobody does that; they either do `Object(x) === x` or the faster `x && (typeof x === 'function' || typeof x === 'object')`
06:08:46  <ljharb>(where "nobody" means "nobody but that one person")
07:03:34  * araiquit (Remote host closed the connection)
07:09:54  * araijoined
07:14:28  * araiquit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
08:39:47  <annevk>Has anyone ever proposed a non-detachable ArrayBuffer so it's easier to optimize?
09:41:27  * keith_millerjoined
10:08:16  * not-an-aardvarkquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
10:25:09  * mylesborinsquit (Quit: farewell for now)
10:25:39  * mylesborinsjoined
13:06:20  * keith_millerquit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
13:06:31  * tobiequit
13:07:06  * tobiejoined
13:10:34  * dhermanquit
13:10:50  * dhermanjoined
13:13:20  * Domenicquit
13:13:40  * Domenicjoined
13:24:04  * keith_millerjoined
13:24:51  * keith_millerquit (Client Quit)
13:48:02  * AtumTjoined
13:49:41  * bstoroz_quit
13:49:53  * bstoroz_joined
13:53:07  * ljharbquit
13:53:42  * ljharbjoined
14:13:26  * littledanquit
14:13:43  * littledanjoined
14:37:40  * caiolimaquit
14:37:53  * caiolimajoined
14:52:31  * jmdyckjoined
15:18:13  * nomadtechiequit
15:18:26  * nomadtechiejoined
15:30:39  * diervoquit
15:30:51  * diervojoined
15:33:48  * devsnekquit
15:34:06  * devsnekjoined
18:07:59  <caitp>the syntax error in proposal-class-fields for `UnaryExpression : delete MemerExpression . PrivateName` ... why is it limited to strict only? wouldn't you want to forbbid deleting private names in sloppy mode too, if it were possible to create valid private references in sloppy mode?
18:08:20  <Bakkot>You can't have a `PrivateName` in sloppy code at all, is the reason
18:08:34  <caitp>yeah, but that's sort of specified elsewhere
18:08:55  <caitp>and could change some day
18:09:29  <Bakkot>There's a note actually: "Private fields may not be deleted in any case. There are only ever private names defined inside class bodies. Inside of a class body, code will be in strict mode, and the above rule applies. Outside of a class body, there will be no private names defined, so the below rule will apply."
18:10:52  <Bakkot>anyway I don't know if there's a particular reason to restrict the rule, though OTOH I think it does suggest that the error for `delete a.#b` in sloppy code should be "you can't have a private name here" and not "you can't delete a private name"
18:12:34  <caitp>I dunno, I think it's better to have the code be invalid in multiple ways and let the implementation decide which way to report, rather than make up rules that don't really make sense
18:13:12  <Bakkot>/shrug
18:13:40  <Bakkot>it's purely editorial, so could certainly be changed at this point if you feel strongly; I think littledan is the one to talk to
19:19:38  * srl295joined
20:23:46  <littledan>yeah, I'd be fine with making that editorial change one way or the other; you're not the first to ask
23:41:56  * srl295quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)