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

June 2019 #58

Open
chicoxyzzy opened this issue Jun 4, 2019 · 32 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jun 4, 2019

Dynamic imports moves to stage 4 🎉 (pending editors reviewing the spec PR)

babel/babel#9552

@jridgewell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 4, 2019

Let all early errors be SyntaxErrors gained consensus

tc39/ecma262#1527

@jridgewell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 4, 2019

For-in enumeration order reached Stage 2

https://github.com/tc39-transfer/for-in-exploration/

@jridgewell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 4, 2019

BigInt to Stage 4, pending editors reviewing the spec PR

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bigint/

@jridgewell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 4, 2019

eval(nonString) should not side effect gained consensus

tc39/ecma262#1504

@jridgewell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 4, 2019

Set "name" property for anonymous functions gained consensus

tc39/ecma262#1490

@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jun 5, 2019

Intl.DisplayNames to stage 2

@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jun 5, 2019

Emitter to Stage 1

@jridgewell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 5, 2019

@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jun 5, 2019

There was also some normative changes to ECMA-402 which got consensus

@chicoxyzzy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jun 5, 2019

Optional chaining to stage 2

Nullish Coalescing to stage 2

@jridgewell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 6, 2019

Top level await to Stage 3

@jridgewell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 6, 2019

Lookup constructor.resolve only once in PerformPromise{All, Race} got consensus

@hzoo hzoo pinned this issue Jun 6, 2019

@jridgewell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 6, 2019

WeakRefs to Stage 3, pending Kevin's editor review

@zloirock

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 7, 2019

What about the standard library and Promise.any?

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jun 7, 2019

They’re not mentioned here because they have not changed stage.

@zloirock

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 8, 2019

Anyway, adding this information could be useful.

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jun 8, 2019

That seems silly, a great many things haven’t changed stage.

@zloirock

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 8, 2019

That seems silly don't write about it since those proposals claimed to change the state at this meeting.

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jun 8, 2019

They sought advancement on the agenda; but not everything that seeks it gets it.

The purpose of this issue isn’t to update people on the meeting - that’s what the notes are for. It’s to let Babel people know what actions they might need to take as a result of the meeting.

@zloirock

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 8, 2019

...or not needed.

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jun 8, 2019

None are ever needed, unless otherwise indicated.

@zloirock

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 8, 2019

@ljharb I can't understand, is it too hard to write the summary of the result of discussion for each proposal from the agenda? I'm one of the first implementors of proposals - and since I haven't any direct information from TC39 meetings, I should keep in mind that the state of the proposal was able to be changed and just someone forgot to publish it here or somewhere else until the publication of notes in the meeting notes repo.

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jun 8, 2019

Yes, it is - the agenda has many things on it, and the notes - which you just have to wait for - are that writeup.

The tc39/proposals repo is the closest thing to a source of truth; that's where it will be up to date after every meeting.

@zloirock

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 8, 2019

...which also contains obsolete information and updated with a delay.

Awesome, thanks.

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jun 8, 2019

What information in it is obsolete? and yes, a delay is fine - there's no rush on adapting to these changes.

@zloirock

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 8, 2019

I wrote issues or messages to required people about obsolete information in tc39/proposals repo enough. But now I write about this repo as about a place where I can get immediate information about changes in states of proposals for planning releases / changes in core-js. I can't understand, it's too hard to write just some words that after discussing the state of the proposal was not updated? It could be very useful to me.

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jun 8, 2019

If you don't see a message saying it was updated, then it wasn't updated. I'm not sure what's so hard about that.

The proposals repo is fully up to date. If you have an issue to file, please file it, but otherwise whatever's in that repo is the state of all proposals.

@zloirock

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 8, 2019

If you don't see a message saying it was updated, then it wasn't updated.

See the previous issues - not all updates were published here. Otherwise, such questions would not arise.

The proposals repo is fully up to date.

Also not always.

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jun 8, 2019

I'm the one tasked to keep it so; and yes, it is up to date, as far as I'm aware.

@zloirock

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 8, 2019

Seems you did not hear me. I still don't see any updates even in dynamic import or BigInt proposal, I remember when some proposal repos were not updated more than half a year. I don't see any updates in tc39/proposals - as you wrote, there's no rush on adapting to these changes. But not in my cases, where immediate information is very useful.

@ljharb

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jun 8, 2019

That's because those proposals are not, technically, at stage 4 until their spec PRs were approved, per the process document. I pushed tc39/proposals@b04295f the instant I approved import() - which was the first moment it was actually stage 4, so you can't get any more up to date than that. Any announcement otherwise was premature. BigInt is still at stage 3, because its PR is not yet approved.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.