search

tc39 / proposal-type-annotations

ECMAScript proposal for type syntax that is erased - Stage 1
https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations/
4.27k stars 47 forks source link

`--experimental-strip-types` in node #222

Closed lemanschik closed 4 months ago

lemanschik commented 4 months ago

It got implemented unexpectedly they followed also the guide to not handle enum and interface

but they plan to maybe add that so at present it would be the correct implementation of this but it is not stable maybe some one can align that efforts.

lemanschik commented 4 months ago

This also enables us to lift this to stage 3 now as it already has adoption!!!

acutmore commented 4 months ago

Hi @lemanschik

For a proposal to get to a certain stage it also needs to have met the requirements of the prior stages, and then only advances to the next stage if there is consensus.

https://tc39.es/process-document/

There can't be official implementations of this proposal yet because it does not yet have a stage 2.7 specification. So the proposal is still at stage 1.

lemanschik commented 4 months ago

@acutmore ok you can see it as you want we can then also simple close this proposal as when it now lands in chrome and graaljs we got 3 implementations so no one will advance the proposal anymore.

lemanschik commented 4 months ago

maybe we should consider to update the whole tc39 process and take care of edge cases like this where the implementation is done before the proposal is finished.

ljharb commented 4 months ago

The node implementation isn’t done, is experimental, and can’t actually match whatever might advance here (and thus in browsers).

robpalme commented 4 months ago

Thanks for the note, Frank.

The champions have been in contact with the Node folks for the last few weeks (see the Node meeting recordings on YouTube) so we already have awareness and comms going on.

Given the issue title is misleading - advancement is solely a TC39 committee decision - I'm going to close this now.

shaedrich commented 1 week ago

maybe we should consider to update the whole tc39 process and take care of edge cases like this where the implementation is done before the proposal is finished.

It's not tc39's fault if third-parties jump the gun, is it?

PORPOSAL\ Given the issue title is misleading

I think, you even have a typo there 😉

You probably meant to say "poorposal"