Ron Buckton

This capability may be even more relevant now that `addInitializer` for fields now occurs in field order after all extra initializers from methods have been invoked. While I support the...

> In example 2, if `C[@@asyncDispose]()` completes normally and so is `await`'d, I wouldn't expect another `await` to be necessary for `B`. We've already done an `await`, and we haven't...

Consensus in plenary was to collapse all Awaits for `null`/`undefined`, not just contiguous runs of `null`/`undefined`. There was also tentative consensus to enforce an Await if there are a run...

@nicolo-ribaudo, you asked to review the proposed changes here before this could reach consensus. I'd appreciate if you could review these changes as of the most recent commits. The intent...

I'd also appreciate additional reviews from @syg, @waldemarhorwat, @michaelficarra, and @bakkot.

Also, if @mhofman and @erights could take a look, I'd appreciate it.

> How can I see a rendered form of this? The [first comment](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-management/pull/219#issuecomment-2015561335) on this PR contains a link to the rendered spec text. The specific section in question is...

> It's not explicit from the examples, but awaits are also collapsed across subsequent separate `await using` declarations right? Correct. I called this out: > * Does not distinguish between...

> > I agree, in principle. My concern is this: should `C[@@asyncDispose]()` throw synchronously and we do not introduce a synthetic `Await` for `B`, then there would be no `Await`...

@typescript-bot: pack this