Ben Lesh

Well, whenever we made the decision to go with `.pipe()` over prototype patching and method chaining, the tradeoff that needed to be considered was one of terseness versus utility. `.pipe()`...

In general, I like this sort of idea. However, I'd caution against it because of the nuance involved with converting something that's entirely push-based (EventTarget) to something that is pull-push...

> I briefly floated https://glitch.com/edit/#!/angry-wound. It's been many years though. @domenic: I honestly like the `forEach(cb, { signal })` (no surprise, I'm sure) and I think it's worth exploring. #544...

> Another thing that would be interesting to know is what the various frameworks and libraries do here and whether this would make their job easier. I can't speak for...

@jhusain it could also be handled with `map`, although it would drive some purists crazy: ```js button.on('click').map(e => (e.preventDefault(), e)).first() ```

@jhusain I completely agree. I was just demonstrating that if there was a concern over method proliferation, it's possible with existing proposed methods. (And I know about the return requirement,...

> Not to bikeshed, but the name of that method seems to keep flipping between do and tap. @appsforartists, that's an RxJS implementation thing. Unrelated to this issue.

@appsforartists this proposal is really meant to meet needs around events in the DOM, and happens to ship with a nice, powerful primitive. We should keep it to that and...

> At the risk starting the bikeshedding wars around the API; would .observe() be a reasonable name for this? @keithamus Certainly! But there's already a huge amount of industry momentum...

From user land perspective, in terms of rxjs, this looks very palatable to me. RxJS's `Subscription` object could easily implement this interface. The only weird part is it would make...