Re: [strawman] Symbol.thenable proposal

This proposal is that Symbol.thenable can be false, or true (which is a no-op). A future proposal could make it *also* be a string or symbol (IsPropertyKey), and then change the method name. In other words, I don't think there's a conflict, and I think that changing the method name could and

Re: [strawman] Symbol.thenable proposal

It's a fair point, i assume the usage would be like if the property exists then ignore thenable behaviour and if it is falsy then none of any of this behaviour would occur, so a Module Namespace Object could have like [whateverSymbolName]: null, if thats sorta what you are proposing? On

Re: [strawman] Symbol.thenable proposal

A hypothetical proposal addressing that would intersect with this. On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 2:01 PM, wrote: > I don't understand why you would expect that, can you explain a bit more? > > -Gus > > On 14 Apr 2018 10:53, Michael Theriot > wrote: > >

Re: [strawman] Symbol.thenable proposal

I don't understand why you would expect that, can you explain a bit more?-GusOn 14 Apr 2018 10:53, Michael Theriot wrote:Currently 'then' is effectively a reserved key and I'd expect any extension that allows the language to ignore it likewise include a means of

Re: [strawman] Symbol.thenable proposal

Currently 'then' is effectively a reserved key and I'd expect any extension that allows the language to ignore it likewise include a means of changing the key entirely. On Apr 12, 2018, at 9:33 PM, Gus Caplan wrote: Hello all, In an effort to curtail the interesting behavior of

Re: [strawman] Symbol.thenable proposal

To state even more clearly how this is directly affecting API decisions in NodeJS, we're considering supporting a dynamic import hook for `vm.Script`, and one of the API suggestions is: new vm.Script(`import('x').then(x => console.log(x))`, { async resolveDynamicImport (specifier) { return

Re: EcmaScript Proposal – Private methods and fields proposals.

Oops...somehow, I forgot about that... :-) - Isiah Meadows m...@isiahmeadows.com Looking for web consulting? Or a new website? Send me an email and we can get started. www.isiahmeadows.com On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 3:21 AM, T.J. Crowder wrote: >> Just an

Re: EcmaScript Proposal – Private methods and fields proposals.

> Just an item of note: `private` *is* a valid identifier name in sloppy > mode, so your `private(this)` and `private["foo"]` syntax won't work > without banning it from sloppy. `class` code is always strict[1]. -- T.J. Crowder [1]: https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-class-definitions