-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
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
Remove Metadata #454
Remove Metadata #454
Conversation
This would also remove the ability of entangled decorators to get this |
Good point, I'll add back |
At the plenary today consensus was reached to move this proposal to stage 3 conditionally, with metadata being split out into a separate stage 2 proposal. The notion of "access" and the `access` object are highly related to metadata (it's pretty rare that you would have a use case for access outside of metadata), so I'm also removing it in this PR and will be adding it back in the stage 2 metadata proposal.
1159992
to
5c1cc15
Compare
@@ -101,11 +98,10 @@ The context object also varies depending on the value being decorated. Breaking | |||
- `"field"` | |||
- `"accessor"` | |||
- `name`: The name of the value, or in the case of private elements the _description_ of it (e.g. the readable name). | |||
- `access`: An object containing methods to access the value on the instance. | |||
- `access`: An object containing methods to access the value. These methods also get the _final_ value of the private element on the instance, not the current value passed to the decorator. This is important for most use cases involving access, such as type validators or serializers. See the section on Access below for more details. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this a normative change on the access object?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, this was how it always worked.
The split off proposal-decorator-metadata can be found here: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decorator-metadata/ |
At the plenary today consensus was reached to move this proposal to
stage 3 conditionally, with metadata being split out into a separate
stage 2 proposal. The notion of "access" and the
access
object arehighly related to metadata (it's pretty rare that you would have a use
case for access outside of metadata), so I'm also removing it in this PR
and will be adding it back in the stage 2 metadata proposal.