Daniel Ehrenberg

Some other user stories, not sure if they are the most important, but I imagine these feature requests might come up at some point: ## (E) New features for a...

@domenic Yes, your solution to (E) sounds good to me; I guess if we went with frozen built-in modules, you'd have to use subclassing or something like that. Adding exports...

Agreed that, if we use this syntax, we should do this according to npm and not just snatch it with a change in interpretation on "our end". If we choose...

It looks like you've requested a [W3C TAG design review](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/276). Why have you decided to put this proposal up for review there (in a group which has limited bandwidth), and...

I'm not suggesting that things move straight to Stage 2 (meaning that we've agreed we want to standardize something) but rather Stage 1 (that it's under discussion). I think having...

+1 to the package-name-maps solution [you proposed](https://github.com/domenic/package-name-maps#supplying-fallbacks-for-host-supplied-standard-library-packages) for expressing fallbacks there. I like how that solution gives us just one place where package name mapping happens, as opposed to some...

Another thought to gather of a related construct, but it feels to me like a dead end: There's a related concept in Promises, the "unhanded Promise rejection callback". Each Promise...

All looks very good to me. A couple scattered points: We could make either option more ergonomic by making the request itself have [Symbol.asyncIterator] on it, which would be responsible...

See https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bigint/ for more information.

The TC39 subgroups are completely informal. We don't even have them organized as official Ecma Ad-Hoc Task Groups. These are just places for us to talk technical issues where we...