Ryan Cavanaugh

Need to use ReactDOM instead now

I will summarize my own feedback as well: * The choice of `[[Define]]` over `[[Set]]` for initializers is a bad trade-off that throws away six years of evidence from TypeScript...

@mbrowne [Link](https://babeljs.io/repl/#?babili=false&browsers=&build=&builtIns=usage&spec=false&loose=false&code_lz=MYGwhgzhAEBCkFNoG8BQ1oAcBOB7T0AvNAIwAMA3KgL6qqiQwAiC2AlgG4IAm0CAHgBcEAO24x4EJGgw58VWsFwiIuEAgB0IXAHMAFCIQB3aC3ZduegJQa5mK1VRA&debug=false&forceAllTransforms=false&shippedProposals=false&circleciRepo=&evaluate=false&fileSize=false&timeTravel=false&sourceType=module&lineWrap=true&presets=es2015%2Ces2016%2Ces2017%2Creact%2Cstage-0%2Cstage-1%2Cstage-2%2Cstage-3&prettier=false&targets=Node-4&version=6.26.0&envVersion=1.6.2) ```js class Base { prop = 10; } class Derived extends Base { prop; } // Prints 10 in Babel 6.26, would print 'undefined' console.log(new Derived().prop); ```

If this is your own project, it's generally recommended to publish the types with your package. Is this possible for you?

The library has both `sourceLayer` and `source-layer` ? Can you link the docs?

There's no way that importing React through both CJS and ESM imports is a good idea. I'd want to see a full repro of what's happening here. It's very likely...

A subsequent duplicate declaration without an initializer isn't something we have to cook up never-written object literals to think about. JS already has this: ```js var x = 0; var...

``` let object = { __proto__: proto, foo: 0, // does not trigger setter }; ``` I don't understand the value of analogizing to code that no sane person writes....

> ... Yes they do? You can't write `const obj = { x: 3 } extends { set x(v) { } }`. There's no analogous syntax to what's happening with...

I repeat my earlier claim of the uselessness of analogizing to code that nobody writes. Neither behavior is unambiguously "correct"; there are multiple plausibly-analogous behaviors we can point to (constructor...