00:33:08  * AtumTquit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
00:46:15  * steffansluisjoined
00:47:54  * keith_mi_quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
00:51:39  <steffansluis>Hello! I read this is a place for the discussion of potential tc39 proposals. I'm not ready to propose anything, but I am curious about what you think. I was thinking about async data structures, and the problem with the combination of Promises and Observables. Both are async data structures, but one is natively supported under the `async` keyword and the other isn't, resulting in nasty problems when mixing libraries that support on
00:52:04  <steffansluis>My first thoughts were, maybe an async keyword makes sense, to level out the differences between the data structures. It could be implemented with reverse compatibility by means of a Symbol. In any case, my instinct tells me this is a fundamental problem with the nature of async data in JS, and that it should be solved in the structure of the language itself, hence my thoughts of starting a discussion. Interested to hear what you th
00:52:25  <steffansluis>Hehe, character limits
00:55:34  <steffansluis>So to clarify: what I am thinking of is something like `async { complete: () => Promise.resolve(42), error: () => throw new Error('') }` as a valid replacement for a Promise by providing an alternative to resolve and reject
00:58:55  * steffansluisquit (Quit: Page closed)
01:52:54  * keith_mi_joined
02:10:42  * keith_mi_quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
02:12:00  <devsnek>steffansluis: the best way to compare promise vs observable that i can think of is like
02:12:04  <devsnek>singular vs plural
02:12:29  <devsnek>`await` can only give you a single value
02:13:16  <devsnek>its also worth noting that an object with a function named "then" is a valid replacement for a promise
02:14:55  <devsnek>they could give you an async iterator though
02:15:02  <devsnek>observables
03:19:53  * howdoijoined
03:53:28  * jmdyckquit (Remote host closed the connection)
04:55:27  * Draggorquit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
05:17:19  * keith_mi_joined
05:23:33  * keith_mi_quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
05:25:31  * keith_mi_joined
06:23:37  * keith_mi_quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
06:28:59  * keith_mi_joined
07:32:48  * Draggorjoined
07:43:49  * Draggorquit (Quit: WeeChat 1.9.1)
07:47:52  * Draggorjoined
07:56:55  * jwaldenquit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.92-rdmsoft [XULRunner 35.0.1/20150122214805])
08:35:14  * keith_mi_quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
09:33:00  * not-an-aardvarkquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
09:56:40  * howdoiquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
10:25:05  * mylesborinsquit (Quit: farewell for now)
10:25:35  * mylesborinsjoined
10:39:34  * AtumTjoined
13:09:33  * jmdyckjoined
13:52:19  * keith_mi_joined
14:24:14  <littledan>bradleymeck: Not sure what you mean; do you see any mismatches?
14:24:56  <littledan>I tried to update both the spec text and the explainer; see Shu's slides for an abbreviated summary of the motivation
14:27:31  * cloudshujoined
14:43:10  <bradleymeck>littledan: we were reading https://tc39.github.io/proposal-static-class-features/ and noticed a distinct lack of "Private" stuff in it, but in the README it has a fair amount of stuff about "Private". This was just editorial review, seeing it be explained regarding another feature that isn't there yet we were just trying to see if something was going on / missing from spec text. The spec text does not explicitly ...
14:43:34  <bradleymeck>mention private, but seems like it would work for private? we thought this was ok in the end, but might have some integration issues
14:44:36  <bradleymeck>we are trying to create some text about when proposals reference each other due to cross cutting so that we can be explicit about what we might block on and what can be seen as safe(ish) to include. the basic idea is that if integration can be clearly separated most things don't need to be concerned
14:45:00  <bradleymeck>yay for editorial process documents being created?
15:12:08  * zenparsingjoined
15:46:50  * keith_mi_quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
16:09:53  <srl295>littledan: running late here
16:36:15  * howdoijoined
16:49:57  * Draggorquit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
16:54:04  * Draggorjoined
17:21:46  * keith_mi_joined
17:35:34  <leobalter>mylesborins ljharb meeting?
17:35:54  <ljharb>omw
17:46:21  * keith_mi_quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
17:47:33  * keith_mi_joined
17:51:28  <bradleymeck>littledan: I can't click my name on https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decorators/issues/66 since my github handle doesn't match anything else XD
18:11:16  <mylesborins>sorry I was late :simle:
18:32:20  <littledan>bradleymeck: Oh, heh, forgot to build it
18:33:08  <littledan>bradleymeck: Were you signed up as a Stage 3 reviewer for decorators?
18:34:17  <bradleymeck>littledan: I was way back when and am just putting my marks around saying that I am not seeing problems moving it forward. Papertrail for myself and others.
18:35:43  <bradleymeck>i still have increasing concerns about the topics i was focusing on
18:36:11  <bradleymeck>but feel that we can address it elsewhere given how robust code can't even be obtained by builtin devtools right now
18:36:29  <bradleymeck>at least not what I'm hoping we can get to
18:38:18  <littledan>oh right you are on the checklist, oops
18:47:19  <littledan>bradleymeck: Oops, actually the specification *was* recently built, and it *does* add static private fields and methods
18:47:37  <littledan>all it needed to do, basically, was remove the things that banned "private" in those contexts, which you can see in <del> lines
18:48:19  <littledan>namely, deleting "It is a Syntax Error if PrivateBoundNames of MethodDefinition is non-empty."
18:48:27  <littledan>everything else just sort of fell out
18:48:41  <bradleymeck>thats what it looked like when we talked about it
19:28:04  * howdoiquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
20:05:32  * jwaldenjoined
20:29:40  <littledan>bradleymeck: I'm not sure what you mean. See this patch for what changed when static private fields and methods were added back in https://github.com/tc39/proposal-static-class-features/commit/7a319b580cee991f5bbac8ef96792e23d05e02b6
20:30:23  <littledan>note that this literally just goes back to the state of the Stage 3 world in November 2017; for this reason, I didn't even ask for Stage 3 reviews
20:31:17  <bradleymeck>littledan: at top you have "This proposal defines static public fields, static private fields, and static private methods."
20:32:33  <littledan>yes, that's what we're defining
20:32:35  <littledan>proposing
20:32:44  <littledan>bradleymeck: What's the issue?
20:32:47  <bradleymeck>we were just reviewing the spec text and noticed it didn't have anything really that seemed to define the private bit separately from the public, it is fine just was confusing while we read it over together
20:32:53  <bradleymeck>littledan: no issue we determined
20:33:02  <littledan>the spec text does define static private fields and methods
20:33:09  <bradleymeck>just confusion (i posted a comment while we were talking to see if we could get quick feedback)
20:33:13  <littledan>by removing the syntax errors
20:33:25  <littledan>OK
20:33:43  <bradleymeck>if we land that without separate private stuff for field/method definition it wouldn't add private stuff
20:34:21  <bradleymeck>thats what we got confused about, but it seems to work fine separate of those and would act like just adding public static
20:35:40  <bradleymeck>basically an isolation issue. we think this is fine. We (I) need to make some text for ourselves and other explaining how this kind of mismatch is fine so that others don't misunderstand our thoughts
20:36:25  <bradleymeck>since more proposals are not being considered in isolation due to cross cutting concerns we are in a bit of a confusing state of things if we integrate 1 that mentions another, but not the other at the same time
21:11:28  * zenparsingquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
22:03:27  * araiquit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
23:25:39  <littledan>The spec for static class features is a diff vs class fields+private methods
23:26:01  <littledan>Probably we should have a big spec of all class features together with the contribution of each one highlighted
23:32:17  * araijoined
23:32:52  <littledan>The term cross-cutting concern seems a bit odd here. One proposal has a dependency on the other; it is very explicit
23:43:37  <bradleymeck>if there is a better term? all the split and joins might be a different perspective for me than others
23:44:41  * cloudshuquit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)