search

babel / proposals

✍️ Tracking the status of Babel's implementation of TC39 proposals (may be out of date)
https://github.com/tc39/proposals
432 stars 39 forks source link

June 2019 #58

Open chicoxyzzy opened 5 years ago

chicoxyzzy commented 5 years ago

https://github.com/tc39/agendas/blob/master/2019/06.md

chicoxyzzy commented 5 years ago

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

https://github.com/babel/babel/pull/9552

jridgewell commented 5 years ago

Let all early errors be SyntaxErrors gained consensus

https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1527

jridgewell commented 5 years ago

For-in enumeration order reached Stage 2

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

jridgewell commented 5 years ago

BigInt to Stage 4, pending editors reviewing the spec PR

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

jridgewell commented 5 years ago

eval(nonString) should not side effect gained consensus

https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1504

jridgewell commented 5 years ago

Set "name" property for anonymous functions gained consensus

https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1490

chicoxyzzy commented 5 years ago

Intl.DisplayNames to stage 2

chicoxyzzy commented 5 years ago

Emitter to Stage 1

jridgewell commented 5 years ago

Array.isTemplateObject to Stage 2

https://github.com/mikesamuel/proposal-array-is-template-object

chicoxyzzy commented 5 years ago

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

chicoxyzzy commented 5 years ago

Optional chaining to stage 2

Nullish Coalescing to stage 2

jridgewell commented 5 years ago

Top level await to Stage 3

jridgewell commented 5 years ago

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

jridgewell commented 5 years ago

WeakRefs to Stage 3, pending Kevin's editor review

zloirock commented 5 years ago

What about the standard library and Promise.any?

ljharb commented 5 years ago

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

zloirock commented 5 years ago

Anyway, adding this information could be useful.

ljharb commented 5 years ago

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

zloirock commented 5 years ago

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

ljharb commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

...or not needed.

ljharb commented 5 years ago

None are ever needed, unless otherwise indicated.

zloirock commented 5 years ago

@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 commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

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

Awesome, thanks.

ljharb commented 5 years ago

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

zloirock commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

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

zloirock commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

That's because those proposals are not, technically, at stage 4 until their spec PRs were approved, per the process document. I pushed https://github.com/tc39/proposals/commit/b04295ff4af51c143c62df62947ae7cb25759691 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.