Kevin Gibbons

Can the new table be dropped in light of https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2649?

@DanielRosenwasser I can remove `/* @internal */` from `Clause`, but ideally I'd like to figure out how to prevent this category of issue in the future - is there a...

> I’d figured the reasoning here was that even though next() produced a normal completion for a valid iterator result, the promise represents the eventual “actual” completion. It seems consistent...

> if `yield * [ 1, 2, 3 ]`’s array iterator is suspended when we resume the generator around it, is there really any good reason it “must” implement throw...

On the other hand, if you tried to call `.throw` _directly_ on an iterator which didn't have it at all you would get a `TypeError`, not the original exception, so...

Following up here: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2819 got consensus at the July 2022 plenary meeting. We're waiting on implementations before landing that PR, at which point this can be closed.

> Separately, the spec currently happens to obey the useful invariant that the string-named symbol-valued properties of %Symbol%, the Symbol constructor, are exactly the well-known symbols. I have already written...

I would also have preferred the RegExp ones live somewhere related to RegExp and that Symbol.isConcatSpreadable lived somewhere related to Array, yes. Putting everything on Symbol is not sustainable.

Huh, yup, I think that's a bug in the spec. Setting `[[SourceText]]` after [`ClassDefinitionEvaluation`](https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/ecmascript-language-functions-and-classes.html#sec-runtime-semantics-classdefinitionevaluation) was fine prior to [static blocks being added](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2440) (since computed method names in the class body...

Oh, sure, same deal there.