Michael Ficarra

At the presentation to committee, there was no support for this change and 1 delegate preferred the status quo to match Array.prototype. Closing.

Things have gotten really busy for me and I don't think I'll be able to prepare this for stage 3 (at least not on my own) in time for the...

@jorendorff That PR is on the top of my list for review. I'll hopefully get to it this week, possibly even today. An additional review from you (even if it...

@mpcsh That's fine, we will ask for a new one at the meeting next week: https://github.com/tc39/agendas/commit/868028cbc63ddee53a04ca88cfe07ac154377ed0

Update: @codehag has volunteered (possibly to be replaced in the future by @jorendorff).

@gibson042 @ljharb @rbuckton This proposal is ready for review. Note the 3 open issues which will be resolved by the remaining open PRs depending on committee decision when this is...

Reminder @gibson042 @ljharb @rbuckton that this proposal is potentially up for stage 3 at the next meeting. The [slides](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14oZanWyqMBFyplX28d3U3Z2mjARqyJwaq1dF4dh2Ckc/edit) have been posted to the agenda. Please review this proposal ahead...

@rbuckton The section numbers are correct. It's not terribly unusual. See 14.7.5.10.2.1, 16.2.1.5.1.1, 16.2.1.5.2.1, 16.2.1.5.2.2, 16.2.1.5.2.3, 16.2.1.5.2.4, 16.2.1.5.2.5.

@ljharb > * "filterer" is a weird argument name. why not "predicate"? > * can the argument be named "predicate" instead of "fn"? Sure, though I'll wait on wait on...

> * This does an OrdinaryHasInstance check for `%Iterator%`, but does not check whether the iterator has a `next()` method, while GetIteratorDirect _does_ perform a check for a valid `next`...