Sébastien Doeraene

I guess my objection amounts to "I don't like it", yes. I don't think we should special-case scalajs-dom in scala-js.org. Promote, certainly (and we do promote other libraries as well,...

> To be honest I don't really understand this at all. It's already special-cased by living in this org and publishing under the group id. Unless you also don't like...

> I mean, if a few random Discord +1s would change your mind we can do that ... but it does make me question the value of my (and @zetashift's)...

It's a quick fix if we assume that we're allowed to fix it. It changes the erasure of working code, which is a big red flag!

There's no allocation of `ArrowAssoc` here. It's fine.

The new signatures seem fine here. They're (uselessly) *textually different*, which trips MiMa up, but they're still correct. We could avoid renaming type parameters that shadow things that are not...

No it wouldn't. `yield`s must be lexically in a generator function. They cannot suspend across stack frames. That means it's nothing that a Scala macro couldn't do with local transformations....

Generators and `await` are two different things. Generators are not `Promise`s. Well they're orthogonal: you can write an async generator, but that *composes* the notion of a generator with that...

Proof of concept: #5082. Feel free to try it out. If you can get some benchmarks with measurable improvements, that would give a good case to push this further.

AFAICT, this is as designed. The `new Config { ... }` requires some private field to hold `routeTitle`. We don't promise that only *visible* fields will be used to implement...