Re: [webkit-dev] Exciting JS features (class fields) in need of review :)

I left the boring review feedback that this work should be behind a feature flag. Mentioning it here because this may apply to other feature patches you have in progress. (I am not qualified to review the substance of what the patch is doing.) > On Feb 13, 2019, at 1:51 PM, ca...@igalia.com

Re: [webkit-dev] Experimental features review

> On Feb 13, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Hi, > > Last year, we cleaned up experimental features in WebPreferences.yaml to > ensure no experimental features were enabled by default. Since then we have > regressed a bit when enabling cool new web features. :) Currently we

[webkit-dev] Exciting JS features (class fields) in need of review :)

Hi WebKitters, My colleagues at Igalia have been working on a number of JS language features! We want WebKit to have implementations in order to provide feedback for TC39, and to help meet the requirements to have them merged into the specification proper. Unfortunately, JSC suggested

[webkit-dev] Experimental features review

Hi, Last year, we cleaned up experimental features in WebPreferences.yaml to ensure no experimental features were enabled by default. Since then we have regressed a bit when enabling cool new web features. :) Currently we have 12 offenders, listed below. Most likely, the category:

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

I’ve definitely done this in JSC before. As with everyone else, I don’t feel particularly strongly about it. > On Feb 7, 2019, at 8:45 PM, Chris Dumez wrote: > > Same here, I used it in PSON code with completion handlers. I liked the more > concise code but I also do not feel strongly about