Linus Unnebäck

Some relevant discussions: - https://github.com/nodejs/undici/pull/911/files#r680432742 - https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/33037 Personally, I feel that `unknown` provides the least amount of danger of shooting oneself in the foot, which I think it most important....

> You can't simply "let it stay as unknown" because that would mean you cannot do anything with the JSON, nor access any of its properties. In the case I...

> [...] but can we have something like this `json(): Promise;` instead? I don't think that we should do this. It was discussed in both of the links that I...

@Bessonov @tatemz Do you think that typing `await response.json()` is so much more convenient than typing `await response.json() as Foo`? The benefit of having the latter is that organisations that...

I really wish that we would have done this before 3.0.0 😅 I'm not sure we can do this now since this technically breaks things that worked before, e.g. `import...

@manuelbieh another approach would be to release a breaking change that drops CommonJS altogether. That would be my recommendation! Many packages are moving to this since all current versions of...

> You might try increasing the timeout of the lambda function. I don't think that this is a Lambda timeout issue. I'm getting the indicated response right away, and it...

```ts // Also incorrect if (example !== undefined && example.has(10)) { // ... } ``` Is this really incorrect? That seems like a clear bug to me. ----- My recommendation...

So, I've read thru your post a few times now, and I still feel that having `always` is the best approach for standard. I also feel that you are being...

@mightyiam I'm not sure that I can clearly see the problem with `always`, would you mind elaborating? I personally feel that enforcing `return await` is very useful for us.