TC39 Meeting on July 2016

[leobalter]

The meeting is happening next week and you can check the agenda here.

My plans for the meetings consist on:

• present a new proposal for Object.enumerable{Keys,Values,Entries}, hopefully moving it from stage 0 to 1
• Support a PR to tc39/ecma262 from Claude Pache: Disregard lastIndex for non-global non-sticky regexps
• Informally discuss about our current pre-proposals (see [Meta] Array.prototype.sample #23, [Meta] Array.prototype.shuffle #33 and [Meta] Math.randomInt(min, max) #40) with other TC39 Representatives

I'm also very interested on some other topics already in the agenda:

• Shared memory and atomics: This extends the use of TypedArrays in a very optimized way, and much more. This is probably the most complex theme for the next meeting but it's being worked very well. I hope it makes to stage 3.
• System.global
• Promise.prototype.finally which might conflict with cancelable promises but it is simple a gets the job done. See: TC39 Meeting on July 2016 #46 (comment)

If you have any feedback, question or suggestion from any topic, we can use this issue to discuss.

I'll publish a report after the meeting.

[AurelioDeRosa]

Hi @leobalter. Can you expand or provide a link for "Disregard lastIndex for non-global non-sticky regexps"?

[leobalter]

np, every link can be found at the agenda but I updated the main post to add them.

[jzaefferer]

If I understood your notes correctly, the last meeting was mostly spent around tail calls. Is there any mechanism to avoid the shared memory topic to eat up all the non-timeboxed time?

[leobalter]

Is there any mechanism to avoid the shared memory topic to eat up all the non-timeboxed time?

Technically, no. At least the time boxed items will be prioritized. I expected more items to be set as timeboxed, it didn't happen.

TC39 is trying to optimize the time management during the meetings. AFAICT, the Shared Memory proposal has a pretty active discussion on it's own repo with active reviewers with lots of questions answered. I believe if we have a +1 from the reviewers at the meeting we'll have a nice chance to get it to stage 3. I'm doing a personal review this week, as I'm interested on how it will get the tests on test262.

There's a stage 3 milestone.

[jzaefferer]

Gotcha, thanks.

I expected more items to be set as timeboxed, it didn't happen.

Who sets the timeboxes?

[leobalter]

Each champion when they add an item to the agenda.

[ljharb]

(fwiw, Promise#finally was explicitly designed to not conflict with cancelable promises, and I've worked with its champion to ensure that's the case)

[leobalter]

That's great to know, @ljharb, thanks!

[leobalter]

• Report
• meeting notes

Reviews are welcome! Thanks in advance.

[jzaefferer]

Where can I find a code example for Class public fields? https://jeffmo.github.io/es-class-public-fields/ is unreadable to me.

[ljharb]

The proposal repo https://github.com/jeffmo/es-class-public-fields/ doesn't have one either - but it's basically

class Foo {
  foo = bar;
}

Instead of

class Foo {
  constructor() {
    this.foo = bar;
  }
}

[jzaefferer]

I see, thanks. Would be nice to add that.

I'm also interested in static class properties (much more so then non-static ones). Are those tied together?

[ljharb]

Yes, those are tied together.

[AurelioDeRosa]

Isn't

class Foo {
  foo = bar;
}

what TypeScript does?

[ljharb]

TypeScript isn't standard JavaScript, so it's not really relevant - but I believe it does have similar syntax, yes.

[AurelioDeRosa]

Well, clearly isn't relevant in regard of what the group will decide. However, it was relevant/interesting to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

[rwaldron]

Jörn,

I was actually quite surprised to see that there were no simple (nor
complex, nor anything!) use case examples in the proposal repo. I went
ahead and filed this:
tc39/proposal-class-public-fields#46

Rick

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM Aurelio De Rosa [email protected]
wrote:

Well, clearly isn't relevant in regard of what the group will decide.
However, it was relevant/interesting to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#46 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABtUWQCV2wOj27znYS_RKPVO-uEs-LGks5qeihEgaJpZM4JOwTC
.