Brian Terlson (BT), Michael Ficarra (MF), Jordan Harband (JHD), Waldemar Horwat (WH), Tim Disney (TD), Michael Saboff (MLS), Eric Faust (EFT), Chip Morningstar (CM), Daniel Ehrenberg (DE), Leo Balter (LBR), Yehuda Katz (YK), Jafar Husain (JH), Domenic Denicola (DD), Rick Waldron (RW), John Buchanan (JB), Kevin Gibbons (KG), Peter Jensen (PJ), Tom Care (TC), Dave Herman (DH), Bradley Farias (BFS), Dean Tribble (DT), Jeff Morrison (JM), Sebastian Markbåge (SM), Saam Barati (SBI), Kris Gray (KGY), John-David Dalton (JDD), Daniel Rosenwasser (DRR), Jean-Francis Paradis (JFP), Sathya Gunasekasan (SGN), Juan Dopazo (JDO), Bert Belder (BBR), Shu-yu Guo (SYG), Eric Ferraiuolo (EF), Caridy Patiño (CP), Allen Wirfs-Brock (AWB), Jacob Groundwater (JBG), Adam Klein (AK), István Sebestyén (IS), Tom Van-Cutsem (TVC), Claude Pache (CPE), James Kyle (JK)
Remote: István Sebestyén (IS)
István Sebestyén: The audio is very bad, unfortunately. ... Maybe I better write.... Regarding the 2017 European meeting tell me when should it be. In March it would probably be cheaper. Also still skiing would be possible after or before the meeting if someone cares for that. May will be more expensive. Meeting place suggestion: Montreux - Royal Plaza Hotel.
Something else: Status of Fast Track to ISO/IEC: The ECMA-414 needs a 2nd Edition before we can move ahead. I think this has been discussed already. On ECMA-404 JSON Fast track, the DIS voting is going on, and will end in Decmber (I think December 8, 2016). Nothing to be done right now.
No European meeting in 2017, but East coast meeting instead. Host: we find it out....later. The new idea is, just to have every 2 years European meeting. We should rather have also East Coust meetings. Possible hosts: Google, Bocoup....
In order not to spend too much time in the face to face meetings please address any issues on GitHub where the Secretariats issues are discussed.
Have a good continuation of the meeting.
Need new Chairman. Please consider. This is so not true. We need to look how the Chair question develops. Currently not clear.
(Tom Van Cutsem, Claude Pache)
https://github.com/claudepache/es-invariants
AWB: Background: There was a missing Proxy check, and in response, Tom and Claude have come up with a fix and a nice formalism. This is of interest to a few people, so let's not all talk about this for an hour.
MM: I am confident that
YK: Q...
TVC: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/666 . Proxies are designed to not circumvent invariants of objects, namely non-configurability and non-extensibility. The Proxy will check that the handler returns a value consistent with the target.
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/666#issuecomment-239512646
If you have a non-configurable property on the target, and the Proxy says it's configurable, it's a violation.
If <invariant>
Claude went through and found a few missing invariant checks based on writing these things out exhaustively:
Bug shown: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/666#issuecomment-239512646
A client of the object can assume x always 2 (non-writable, non-configurable), call defineProp on value, set to 3. The proxy was allowed to change the meta property settings:
var target = Object.seal({x: 2})
var proxy = new Proxy(target, {
getOwnPropertyDescriptor(o, p) {
var desc = Reflect.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(o, p)
if (desc && 'writable' in desc)
desc.writable = false
return desc
}
})
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(proxy, 'x') // !!! should throw
// { value: 2, configurable: false, writable: false }
Object.defineProperty(proxy, 'x', { value: 3 })
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(proxy, 'x') // { value: 3 }
MM: Are the other two bugs analogous?
TVC: The second is the same (the DefineProperty case). The third is a little different--[[Delete]] for a Proxy of a non-extensible object, which will return true without deleting it from the target. You could then see some kind of adding properties on a non-extensible object, putting them back.
var target = Object.preventExtensions({ x: 1 })
var proxy = new Proxy(target, {
deleteProperty() { return true }
})
Object.isExtensible(proxy) // false
delete proxy.x // true !!! should throw
proxy.hasOwnProperty('x') // true
MM: If the object is non-extensible, a deletion of a property should succeed if the trap deletes the property from the target, right?
TVC: Yes
MM: Consensus?
DE: This should be doable in V8
YK: Should this break any users?
MM: I don't know, but it shouldn't break my patterns--all of my code which uses Proxies is for security and is insecure due to these violated invariants, and would benefit from these changes.
YK: Only way this affects a proxy is author is concerned with extensibility, specifically configurability and writability. If you're trying to virtualize the invariants, then broken.
Agree that's probably "malware"
DE: I'd expect that non-security-related code using Proxies is unlikely to care much about extensibility and configurability, so it is similarly unlikely to break.
AWB: is there a PR with fixes?
TVC: Yes.
RW: Confirm? PR for implementation or spec?
AWB: Spec.
Yes
DE: Tests for Test262?
AWB: Claude's methodology for describing invariants is something we could incorporate into the spec, but this is more than the bug fix.
MM: likely a separate effort, but completely agree.
DD: Sounds like a good non-normative change that could be done in collaboration with the editor in a PR, appendix, etc.
(Sebastian Markbåge)
http://sebmarkbage.github.io/ecmascript-rest-spread/
SM: Related new proposal: getters and setters are expected to work more like fields than methods. However, they are defined on the prototype, as well as non-enumerable. Confusing when trying to deprecate a field, make it lazy, etc. However, own enumerable checks required for analogy to existing patterns.
// getters are non-own
class Foo {
bar = 123;
}
let data = {
...new Foo()
}
data.bar // 123
Options:
- Leave things as is, and use Object.defineProperty to make own getters/setters
- New syntax for own getters/setters
- Breaking: Change getters/setters in class syntax to be own properties (murmurs from room: No chance!)
- New field flag in property descriptors
Generally held rejection of changing getters/setters to be own properties
RW: Implementors have rejected new fields in property descriptors many times before
DH: Objects as a dictionary are an anti-pattern, but rest/spread are like FP OO record operations.
SM: I'd like to figure out how to solve this issue
WH: The field flag (from Plausible Solutions slide) would be per-property or per-object?
SM: Proposal can be structured either way
SM: (did he say going up the prototype chain?)
JHD: If it's not restricted to own properties, wouldn't it get the getters all the way up the prototype chain? We don't have anything in the language (post-Reflect.enumerate) which goes up the prototype chain like that.
YK: This sort of issue comes up if you evolve code between bare objects and classes. Getters don't interact well with adding new things in a backwards-compatible way as they don't have enumerability.
DD: Some getters are fields, treat as such; some aren't and shouldn't be treated as such. (Examples: vector.length; person.fullName) don't think we should have generic mechanism to apply to all getters/setters
WH: We have a protocol: enumerable, but it doesn't quite match the concept of a field.
DD: need a more general protocol where you can run arbitrary code
MM: clarify: the details of no-change position?
JHD: Exactly as object.assign works now
MM: Adding a field to prop descriptors is an extremely heavy weight thing and needs an earth shattering reason to consider. "world needs to end" importance. This is not that.
JM: Did you discuss making getters not own and making enumerable spread--
SM: I don't think that's a good idea
AWB: I don't think there's an easy fix here. Objects have two roles:
as tuples (value oriented abstraction, named values)
instances of things you can think of as some kind of classes (behavioral)
getters are mostly on behavorial side; you could put a getter on an instance, but atypical
Normal usage is one of those two worlds. Proposal: Remove the own restriction
EFT: Some getters you want to be shared, some not.
DD: Decorators will address this
YK: Enumerable own is important because
...That has changed.
MM: Given this precedent, anything nearby that can benefit is an argument for doing something analogous
YK: To clarify, from jquery's perspective, this stuff is more of a feature for dictionaries, with arbitrary keys. The mismatch is that ... wants to feel like a record feature.
MM: (@YK) can you write a decorator to make own?
YK: Anytime you make a prototype thing, you add cost.
MM: cases where you want g/s to show up as own property: make it own. The overhead of per-instance g/s to have it be own, seems like fair cost
EFT: I might disagree, depending how common the pattern is. There is real memory overhead.
AWB: proposing to possibly eliminate own restriction, but only for inherited enumerable getters
Rest/spread would grab both:
getAK: Wouldn't work well with the DOM; everything in WebIDL is an enumerable getter.
SM: Syntax?
AWB: No, use Object.defineProperty or a decorator
MM: Theory that there is no overhead for the pattern of using own getters — can reuse same getter function objects on multiple instances
EFT: It seems like there would be some overhead still
JHD: This feature is syntax for a pattern that's been used for years across code bases: Object.assign. Because of this weight, we should strongly consider the no change option. APIs/ecosystem patterns haven't proven out in the ecosystem before codifying it in the language.
DD: We should make sure that new syntax solves something new and important. If we're not serving the record programming model, we shouldn't bother with new syntax and just go back to using Object.assign.
SM: I agree that the record use case is a different mental model than the dictionary use case. But we do have a solution, which is for library authors to define own getters.
SM: So, I'd like to go to Stage 3 with the current "no change" proposal.
DD: Suggestion: We could add a protocol later, and make this feature retroactively tie into that.
YK: the reason this is coming up is that if we ship this with the specced semantics, we close the door on something like Allen's proposal of changing to enumerable not-own. I would like to know whether per-instance getters introduce new performance problems.
Implementers: There will be measurable overhead, but it might not be all that expensive
DH: This proposal always creates Object instances; for record programming, we may want to, in the future, add a protocol for making instances of other superclasses. Not blocking, but good to look into in the future.
SM: We could also do that for Arrays.
(Brian Terlson)
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/642
BT: Date.UTC with one argument
Last meeting:
AWB: The only two reasonable results would be to give the first instant of the year (Chakra behavior) or NaN (other implementations)
Proposing: defaulting all subsequent arguments to 0 when called with only one argument
MM: What's the bug we'd be fixing here by returning an error?
AWB: Trying to parallel Date constructor (historic)
BT: Let's go for the functionality and make it work with just a year
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/689
BT: The poisoning is pointless now, we won, let's remove it
AWB: (recapping ECMA414 2nd Edition)
Motion to approve ECMA414, 2nd Edition
(Requires formal vote)
Bocoup: Yes jQuery: yes Apple: Yes Microsoft: Yes PayPal: Yes Mozilla: Yes Google: Yes Yahoo: Yes Salesforce: Yes Shape Security: Yes Facebook: Yes Godaddy: Yes IBM: Yes Netflix: Yes Tilde: Yes Airbnb: Yes
Next: ok to delegate TR104 updating to AWB and LBR?
YES
(Domenic Denicola)
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-cancelable-promises
Status: issues.
DD: I don't like mics
MLS: What's wrong with Mikes?
DD: The feedback made it in the new spec:
WH: explain issues with catch guard?
DD:
try {
f();
} except (e match SyntaxError) {
b();
}
except(e);
{
c();
}
WH: Still ambiguous with else and unbraced if, multi-else changes existing behaviour after you introduce the one-else variant
DD: This is the same as the existing unbraced if/else ambiguity, and doesn't extend it further.
KG: An if whose body is a try followed by an else?
DD: Cannot do that
MM: Problem: going into a similar area of then, but with different meaning? When you see then/else...
then/else is damagingAWB: These are all failure conditions? Why not fail?
DD: Ambiguity with match
YK: else makes sense semantically
DD: Last time, no stage 2 because
unsubscribe method and closed propertyhttps://github.com/tc39/proposal-cancelable-promises/issues/57
Propagation is asynchronous, but needs to be synchronous for Observables.
Proposed way forward: CancelToken.race has their arguments refer to their return value, so they can push the results out, rather than waiting for the Promise.
When using CancelTokens more manually than race: - Naive solution: subscribe, and then check and bail out based on flag. May be inefficient - Add unsubscribe method to Promises-- .unThen()
JHN: Tradeoff between complexity of CancelTokens and usability in more things such as Observables
YK: Cancelation tokens have large scope than Promise?
DD: Yes: streams, observables, promises (and so on)
MM: Notification only delivered as then callbacks are, in a later turn?
BBR: So the cancelation is more an "intent"?
.reason much be synchronously updatedMM: the requirement that the notification be async isn't fatal to your design goals?
No.
DT: motivation for the token specified by promise underneath?
DD: Public api is a .promise getter
DT: Any reason why should be? or .then on a cancel token?
DD: Then creating an ad hoc api for tokens? No, we have something for that: Promises
DE: Some in Web standards are considering ad-hoc thenables as more ergonomic
DD: This is bad, and just for web-compat reasons
DT: Is it the right thing to do unThen?
JH: Avoiding closures is important for some userspace Observables libraries
JHD: What happens to the Promise when you unThen them?
MM: Maybe cancellable registration should not be based on .then? done does not have an output Promise
DD: No, don't want new unsubscription type.
JH: Lots of paths seem to end up back at this
MM: Could we make this work, if it's simple?
DD: It'd be bad to add two things
AK: Wouldn't unThen be another way to unsubscribe (aside from CancelTokens)?
DD: Yes, we do have this circular dependency
MM: .done()?
DD: That has other problems, e.g., what if you throw?
WH: else and except have the same issue: can have an else in an if, try, else, else
WH: The current proposal claims that else works better than except because supposedly else allows for future extensibility to multiple else clauses. This is incorrect.
WH: The current proposal allows at most one else-type clause after a try. That works. It works regardless of whether the keyword is else or except.
However, the proposal claims that else is better because it then allows for a future v2 proposal to introduce multiple else-type clauses after a try. That's not the case because v2 would incompatibly change the meaning of
if (...)
try
{...}
else (e)
{...}
else (e)
{...}
DD: Let's follow up on GitHub with details
(Jafar Husain)
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18KkpDm0Z-lGnUFxcK_ZJwSKCSalnBqjhGN8W--PyT88/edit#slide=id.p
JH: Previously, .subscribe() would get set up using a .start() method which starts delivering values with the Observable once it's already set up.
Having the consumer pass in the CancelToken is better because the consumer doesn't need to wait for the producer to wait to deliver the subscription.
DT/MM: Ability to observe the cancelation
JH:
// Calling
function zalgo(callback) {
if (someConditionIsSatifiedNow) {
callback();
} else {
doTheTask();
process.nextTick(_ => callback());
}
}
zalgo(_ => console.log("not clear if this will be invoked asynchronously or synchronously"));
DD: Observables, Promises and CancelTokens compose well--Observables can have APIs that return Promises, as I presented at TPAC in this example
DE: Is there a code sample which takes advantage of the synchronicity of observables here?
JH: The performance benefits implicitly come up in this code
DE: Well, if it were OK, then Promises could also be made faster by "releasing Zalgo" and not delegating everything to the microtask queue
JH: Observables encourage a more functional programming style, and Promises encourage a more imperative programming style, so it's OK to be synchronous to observables.
DD: if Observables are going to cover EventTarget, then must be sync
MM: Do you need anything else from cancel tokens for Observables?
JH: We only need the 'race' change to make the cancellations synchronous
DD: Then I don't need unThen and could go to Stage 2 for CancelTokens!
MM: Would this paint us into a corner, if we want to add unThen later?
(Discussion about polyfills, staging, getting people to use it, etc)
(Jordan Harband)
JHD: More sense to...
Propose:
BBR: Node.js looks for # on first line. A decorator could be at top level, but private could not
(Should key on #! anyway)
# IdentifierName
EFT: All other languages use @ for annotation/decorator?
Generally, this is not the only cultural motivation for design decisions.
DE: As private field champion, I am neutral.
Kevin is strongly in favor of the sigil swap.
@ is a very intuitive way to signify private state.DRR: Unclear why @ for private is more preferrable to #?
RW: Allen's @names effectively reserved this years ago, because we always wanted to revisit. Evolved into privates today
...Moving to discussion about code that exists
JHD: There will be code that requires no modification and code that requires some.
AWB: There is no code that doesn't go through SOME kind of transpiler. Its not like web code that cannot be broken. Transpilers can handle the code generation.
RW: (example where we changed exponentiation operator syntax and it was just a version bump)
JHD: codemods could be used to swap the sigils; the community is new to this
JK: Decorators are not part of a preset, they are part of a legacy-labeled third party preset. We have explicitly told Babel users that they will need to install something new when this comes up. We will not actually have to do a a major version change when this comes up. Specifically for changes that might occur
YK: Our changes for Stage 2 were intended to allow just decorator authors to have to upgrade, and not decorator users. These things can be considered stable. Downstream consumers will not break
JHD: Plugin option? Legacy sigil or not?
BT: Angular and TypeScript add that option? It's not a solution.
JK/YK: (discussion re: paths forward)
Updrade as they write, without change.
DRR: Code that wont go through transition phase. Concerns about docs and blogs with old syntax.
RW: We have lived through many things changing in the ES6 process, for example generator expressions being removed
JHD: And don't you have compat issues between TypeScript and CommonJS and Babel?
DRR: Yes, but that's really painful and you want to avoid it
JHD: If you're using a non-standard syntax, you shouldn't have expectations that it shouldn't change.
YK: Generally, we should be able to make changes, but we should also be able to weigh existing users vs rational arguments
BFS: JSDoc, etc use the @sigil to document something about the following declaration. If it also represents private state, I would find it confusing personally.
JHD: But doc comments are entirely different from runtime decorator semantics
RW: JSDoc is outside of our committee; we can't let them set the rules
DRR: But there is motivation to look at what exists in programming culture
DT: It'd actually be great to have a different syntax separating the comment and code syntaxes
EFT: Confusion about what appears in comments vs what appears in code?
No. But some think it matters what exists in the ecosystem.
AWB: As a sigil for identifying special kinds of variables, like private state, @ is much more common in terms of number of languages. # as hashtag is a cultural reference, but it's completely separate from @--each of these sigils have context where they evoke something in people.
JHD: This will be there for a long time; appeal to the long tail of future programmers, where "hash tag" is something of a "categorization", decorators deal with a "category" of things.
DH: Early adopters through transpilers give us very strong feedback and are great allies in our committee who it is important to value. This raises the bar for backwards-incompatible changes.
JHD: Next versions of Babel, TypeScript could easily produce a code-mod to upgrade.
DE: decorators will have to be updated between stage 1 and stage 2, but to represent the Angular team, their interest is that users of decorators don't have to change, with the expectation that most programs will not implement their own decorators but rather use decorators from the framework, which will be the only one who has to do the transition. It's not hard to imagine that it will be difficult for some build environments to update themselves.
Discussion/debate of detriment of the swap. Claim: Users call all sorts of different things '.js' and don't document which build flags they need.
JK: If Babel or other transpilers are blocking TC39 from work that it wants to do, then that's not what we're going for, and we should change the ecosystem on our end.
AWB: If we can't make changes like this, it calls the stage process into question.
YK: We can make this change, the question is: should we make this change?
KG: Rough estimate of the number of people who would have to do non-trivial change?
BT: Tens of thousands?
KG: Compared to tens of millions later?
DH: Fails to account for the trust relationship
BT: On the one hand: real cost for developers today.
AWB/JHD: Real cost for teaching for the next 50 years
WH: # as Twitter hash-tag is not going to be around for the next 50 years
JHD: multiple networks have adopted the syntax, so i think it will mean "hashtag" for far longer than that
RW: We're setting a bad precedent in allowing Babel and TypeScript code to determine the course of ES evolution
DRR: This is not the intention of TypeScript,
(Domenic Denicola)
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-iteration
DD: I took this over from Kevin Smith and resolved a number of issues in PRs. Main issue: where does unwrapping happen?
DD: Conclusion: The contract is for .next() to return a Promise of an IterationResult, not a Promise of an IterationResult of a Promise, by:
var asyncGen = async function* () {
yield delay(100);
console.log(1);
}
Then the print would happen right after asyncGen.next(), rather than waiting for delay to end, but the Promise that next returns would only be fulfilled when the delay is done.
MM: Harm in having the for await loop do the double await?
DE: From performance perspective: becomes a triple await. Expect most to use built in either async iterator or an async generator, both of which will follow the contract anyway.
DD: Sync iterators have a contract which is not enforced either
MM: If write something that acts like a badly behaved iterator, what ways can I "surprise" your for loop
DD: You could keep returning values after you return a done: true
DE: fail to clean up in your return method
YK: Hard to write correct, manual version of this.
MM: other than performance argument, don't see another correctness downside?
YK: The more you clean up after people who get manually written iterators wrong, the more likely they are to get them wrong and not notice.
MM: Good point.
DE: small changes after my review, havent looked at them yet.
BT: Nothing missing, no major concerns
(Leo Balter)
https://github.com/leobalter/proposal-setmap-offrom
LBR: Adding of and from to Map, Set, WeakMap & WeakSet
MM: What value does it add over just constructor
AWB: The constructor for these all take a single argument: iterable. if you what you want to do is create, eg. a singleton set and want to be able to accommodate any value passed to you, eg. a string to set. Only safe way is to put it into square brackets.
DD: Versus the constructor, I think of saves square brackets, and from is completely redundant.
AWB: it's not about saving characters, it's about following a convention that's consistent with Arrays.
DE: TypedArrays have of and from
AWB: And we added that to make a general convention
YK: We have to teach people something about the idiom of the constructor. Given that we already have new Set, it would seem to make sense to use here.
EFT: What is the cost of adding consistent APIs across all collection classes?
DD: Not deprecating the constructor
EFT: don't need to deprecate
KG: insane not to provide a way to make the collection without forcing the brackets
AK: Other evidence from the wild about demand? Is there a widely used library for this?
LBR: When working on Test262 tests, we needed many tests for the constructor taking iterables of iterables.
JH: Any polymorphism involved?
AWB: Subclassing or .call'ing this on other constructors would encounter this issue, yes; you'd need to call .add() or something.
MM: A clean API surface is not necessarily a larger API surface.
EFT: Without these, I would think that this would result in user "wat"
YK: A lot of this could be avoided by giving better error messages in our implementations.
DH: I don't like having brackets, but I also want to have new, which is nice, which overrides it.
AWB: Our API taking an iterable for the constructors is actually a good choice for a clean, general constructor.
JH: of and from can be used to create polymorphic apis
[More raucous debate]
MM: Don't want this in the language, but don't object to stage 1.
(Domenic Denicola for Brendan Eich)
?
let f = () => * {}
DH: Argument against: We're probably not going to make class *, so why do need to make arrow *?
WH: What would class * even mean?
widest class of strong idioms to support?
DD: Need to go back and get more evidence.
(Brian Terlson)
import DateTime from "_?_DateTime";
BT: There has been desire for inclusion of built-in modules since dawn of modules. Safe place to introduce new things.
BT: Asking... do we want built-in modules?
DD: We should not move to world where features added after 2018 are in modules. Leave modules to user space.
DH: Strong point, not specifically in agreement.
EFT: We could make duplicate modules for existing built-in things, and maybe eventually we'll take things out of the global namespace in 10 years
DH: One view of the future is that we wont have an enormous library, expanded without bound. Maybe individual ecosystems will introduce standard built-ins
AWB: explicitly in the charter to explore standard libraries
DH: Limit to how fast and how much
MM: Very strongly in favor of built-in modules. Issues to be aware of and address:
BT: Polyfills are just the start--testing hooks, etc
DRR: Feature testing--you can use import() and see what kind of Promise you got out of that?
DH: must have a registry API to reflect on modules
WH: Underscoring polyfillability requirement
WH: Also, you'd fall off a cliff when trying to use one of these built-ins from a traditional, non-module, imperative script. You'd need to convert everything for modules, since import() is asynchronous and harder to use from scripts
JHD: You need to patch it in a polyfill before anyone can use it, not necessarily synchronously
WH: And you'd have to await before anyone can use the thing from an async module load. It would be annoying if, for example, Date or Math had been modules that worked that way.
YK: It's useful to be able to see what's already present, as you can with properties of the global object
DT: We need to do this in a structured way with respect to naming, so people don't fall on landmines, to avoid colliding with user code.
CP: Some Node users like to have things in modules, even when just wrapping existing globals.
DD: What is the motivation?
BBR: This is a matter of consistency. It's fine if TC39 adds some things to the global object, so will it get "full"? It would be nice to have a system way of loading libraries.
JHD: Polyfillability is important, and it leads to the same collision issue with the same bad global namespace.
DD:
AK: As to breaking users by adding things to the global object: I didn't remember Set breaking anything, anyway. And modules for user code make this nicer, with the lexical tier making it even nicer and less risk of an overlap. So this does not seem to be a very strong piece of motivation for built-in modules.
BFS: We have to do the global/local cache for exactly this reason, for polyfillability, namely punching something out locally so it can be replaced. This is a huge topic.
MM: As a counterpoint to AK, Adding JSON broke Facebook, Facebook changed
MM: They were shipping a stringifier and parser, but not to spec because it pre-dated the proposal
(RW, sidenote: ironic ^^^ considering the conversation earlier)
DE: We had compat issues shipping ES2015 due to polyfills as well.
DH: Introducing a new namespace makes it clear that we are talking about candidate standards, rather than user code.
BBR: Why polyfill?
JHD: Fix browser bugs
AK: Testing, replacement with different functionality
DH: Maybe there should be a way to ask for the builtin thing
MM: For SES, being able to get to the outer original thing would subvert the security model.
JHD: I'd also like to replace things for my polyfills and not give access to the original one
BT: And let's bikeshed on the syntax! "std:..."
DH: Shouldn't it be / to meet the JS ecosystem where they are?
BBR: That would already have a semantic
BT: Another option: import DateTime;
DE: Seems a little confusing with the analog to import "DateTime" doing something completely differen