J. S. Choi

See also @mAAdhaTTah’s article [“What’s Happening with the Pipeline Proposal?”](https://babeljs.io/blog/2018/07/19/whats-happening-with-the-pipeline-proposal). We’re working on implementing a bunch of preliminary proposals, each with their own trade-offs, so that TC39 and others can...

As @arichiardi says, the word “resource” does mean something different in Java parlance—and, indeed, [Boot’s API itself uses the word in that other way too](/boot-clj/boot/wiki/Filesets#fileset-components). This overloading of “resource” may...

@legendecas: Thanks for raising this! @hax (the champion of [Extensions](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-extensions)) and I have indeed been discussing privately, since August, about ways to reconcile our two proposals. (See also my [detailed...

@hax has said that they are open to dropping the special namespace (not sure about the special polymorphic extraction/calling syntaxes)—it’s the special treatment of getters/setters that’s the crux, perhaps.

Thanks for the comment, although it doesn’t seem to be related to the extensions proposal (the original topic of this issue). I’m going to mark both of our comments as...

As the [extensions section][] (and the [in-depth comparison][extensions compare]) say, the concrete differences between bind-this and extensions are currently: 1. Bind-this has no special variable namespace (but @hax is willing...

An update: I, @tabatkins, and @hax recently wrote articles about the dataflow proposals, including bind-this and Extensions, and TC39 also held two two meetings about the dataflow proposals:  *...

See also https://github.com/tc39/proposal-call-this/issues/10#issuecomment-1082557270. At plenary, the [Committee weakly preferred tight unbracketed receiver-first syntax](https://github.com/babel/proposals/issues/81#issuecomment-1082076382).

> Syntax `rec::method / rec::[method]` choose `[]` is just for matching `v.method / v[method]`. But you are right, `rec::[method]` doesn't evaluate `method` to key but evaluate `method` to the method...

@bmeck: Yeah, we could use an always-circumfix binary operator, like `…~[…]` or `…![…]` or whatever. `…~[…]` might be confusing with @rbuckton PFA syntax’s `…~(…)` (tc39/proposal-partial-application#48), but they can work together...