Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sept 2017 #28

Open
2 of 11 tasks
hzoo opened this issue Sep 13, 2017 · 24 comments
Open
2 of 11 tasks

Sept 2017 #28

hzoo opened this issue Sep 13, 2017 · 24 comments

Comments

@hzoo
Copy link
Member

hzoo commented Sep 13, 2017

Bocoup, Boston, MA (Sept 26-28)
https://github.com/tc39/agendas/blob/master/2017/09.md

Checkbox means we completed it (some Stage 1 we may want to wait to start given instability of the proposal)
https://tc39.github.io/process-document/ for a primer what each Stage means

New Proposals

Moving Foward

Needs Consensus (Stage 4)

Needs Spec Work

Other (Builtins, etc)

@jridgewell
Copy link
Member

jridgewell commented Sep 26, 2017

Pipeline operator to Stage 1: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator

a |> b |> c

// - - -
c(b(a))

https://twitter.com/left_pad/status/912704437893976066

@hzoo
Copy link
Member Author

hzoo commented Sep 26, 2017

Extensible literals to Stage 1: https://github.com/littledan/proposal-extensible-numeric-literals

1236536253453n		BigInt (special case)
4525i			Imaginary numbers
235435.461m		IEEE 754-2008 64-bit decimal
300px			CSS Typed OM

@mathiasbynens
Copy link

mathiasbynens commented Sep 26, 2017

@jridgewell
Copy link
Member

@mathiasbynens: I don't think there's anything for us to implement with those. 😉

@mathiasbynens
Copy link

@jridgewell Given the feedback during the meeting, I’d say the same goes for the extensible literals proposal and (to a lesser extent) the pipeline operator.

@hzoo
Copy link
Member Author

hzoo commented Sep 26, 2017

Could at least get the syntax in for pipeline, would be interesting trying to do multiple transforms via options (and could test in the REPL for people, assuming we get those options in)

@jridgewell
Copy link
Member

What I mean is the Intl changes are purely runtime. We'd need to implement the parsing and syntax for literals and pipeline.

@jridgewell
Copy link
Member

First Class Protocols to stage 1: https://github.com/michaelficarra/proposal-first-class-protocols

protocol ProtocolName {
  // declare a symbol which must be implemented
  thisMustBeImplemented;

  // and some methods that you get for free by implementing this protocol
  youGetThisMethodForFree(...parameters) {
      methodBody;
  }
}

class ClassName implements ProtocolName {
  [ProtocolName.thisMustBeImplemented]() {
    // this is the implementation for this class
  }
}

let instance = new ClassName;
instance[ProtocolName.youGetThisMethodForFree]();

@michaelficarra
Copy link

@jridgewell Sweet.js implementation with pretty comprehensive test suite located here: https://github.com/disnet/sweet-interfaces

Polyfill implementing the Protocol constructor here: https://github.com/michaelficarra/proposal-first-class-protocols-polyfill. It's correct, but will only work in newer engines and sticks itself on the global for you. PRs to make it good would be very welcome.

@hzoo
Copy link
Member Author

hzoo commented Sep 26, 2017

tc39/ecma262#984

Early errors for RegExp literals: /a{5,3}/, /[z-a]/

Would this have been covered with test262 tests anyway?

@hzoo
Copy link
Member Author

hzoo commented Sep 26, 2017

export-ns-from: export * as ns from 'mod' - #16

to Stage 4 (needs consensus)

@jridgewell
Copy link
Member

Throw expressions to stage 2: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-throw-expressions

a || throw new Error('test');

@jridgewell
Copy link
Member

Optional Chaining remains at Stage 1 😢.

Still need to update to remove super?.prop and a?.b = 1.

@jridgewell
Copy link
Member

jridgewell commented Sep 27, 2017

Private methods and accessors to stage 3: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-methods
Note: static privates footgun

https://twitter.com/littledan/status/913224214760566784

@hzoo
Copy link
Member Author

hzoo commented Sep 28, 2017

Nullary Coalescing from Stage 0 to Stage 1 #14

a ?? b

// concerns about cross-cutting concerns with ?. syntax

@jridgewell
Copy link
Member

Partial application to Stage 1: https://github.com/rbuckton/proposal-partial-application

@michaelficarra
Copy link

@jridgewell With strong objections to the syntax that is currently associated with the proposal.

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Sep 28, 2017

For partial application, please note that there is a not-insignificant number of members that believe that the proposal will not be able to be made viable.

@hzoo
Copy link
Member Author

hzoo commented Sep 28, 2017

import.meta to Stage 3

This was referenced Sep 29, 2017
@littledan
Copy link

Note that extensible numeric literals had significant objections to syntax and semantics as well.

@mgtitimoli
Copy link

Hi everyone, could you please elaborate a bit more what is happening with partial application proposal?

I would love to see it moving forward but based on your comments, I guess it is not gonna be an easy process.

Thanks.

@hzoo
Copy link
Member Author

hzoo commented Sep 30, 2017

You can check the individual issues @mgtitimoli #32 - and the notes will be posted in a few weeks

@brettz9
Copy link

brettz9 commented Jun 20, 2018

Array.prototype.flatten has been changed to Array.prototype.flat per https://github.com/tc39/proposal-flatMap and is now a stage 3 per https://github.com/tc39/proposals .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants