Robin Ricard
Robin Ricard
I think it's worth attaching this to this proposal. We can put in the proposal text a simple statement saying that both records and tuples should behave as their equivalent...
Yes! Or consider it a no-op but I'd prefer to throw.
We are going to try to solve this issue before stage 3, that means either finding out if we can change WebIDL terminology or finding another name for this proposal...
Per #82 we are going to keep Record & Tuple. We intend to disambiguate in the ECMA262 spec by explicitly referring to "Record Primitive" as we discussed in https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/issues/96#issuecomment-1178772411. Do...
I agree, when opening https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/pull/1184 (that I need to finish working on the feedback...), we figured that there is not a major ambiguity between WebIDL Records and ECMAScript Records, at...
You can see an example of this issue in PR #95
We have discussed with @nicolo-ribaudo & @acutmore and were considering the following potential resolution to this issue: - In the Record & Tuple Spec text, we should always refer to...
To me it's in order to avoid any mistake of having a boxed record and starting to see I can mutate it. I don't see many people will wrap their...
> Additionally, if I can't set Symbols on a boxed Record object, then I can't opt them into any protocols, which is pretty important. That might do it to reverse...
Hi @brad4d, thank you for raising this, all of the things you are discussing here are things we already presented on previously either in talks, to the committee or to...