Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Runtime implementation and its availability #50

Open
thodnev opened this issue Sep 30, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

Runtime implementation and its availability #50

thodnev opened this issue Sep 30, 2024 · 7 comments

Comments

@thodnev
Copy link

thodnev commented Sep 30, 2024

First, I would like to thank you for a brilliant idea that allows to largely simplify the asynchronous logic.

However, as I've understood after reading the Polyfilling section, currently there is no runtime support available for the feature, only for the Symbol.result.
Which is a little sad, because I like the feature (as well as >1.2k other people, according to GitHub stars). And would like to use it in my code right away the same way, for example, Symbol.dispose can be used.

From the TC acceptance/rejection point of view, it would also be great to allow the developers to test the proposed feature, and get a bit used to it. This would allow it to gain more popularity and appreciation, and increase chances of its actual incorporation into future standards.

So, are there any plans on introducing the runtime needed into JS transpilers/bundlers like esbuild, Babel, etc ?

@ljharb
Copy link

ljharb commented Oct 1, 2024

@thodnev no language proposal should be used in production until stage 2.7 at a minimum, and this one hasn't even been presented to the committee yet.

@thodnev
Copy link
Author

thodnev commented Oct 1, 2024

@thodnev no language proposal should be used in production until stage 2.7 at a minimum, and this one hasn't even been presented to the committee yet.

Yes, if we take an opinionated point of view.
At the same time we see Stage 1 proposals getting into core-js with proper and functionally complete polyfills. It is one of the reasons of having transpilers in the first place, isn't it?

@ljharb
Copy link

ljharb commented Oct 1, 2024

@thodnev no, it's not, and the position of the committee is that that shouldn't happen - TC39 doesn't control everyone else, but neither does any arbitrary person's actions change whether they're appropriate or not.

@thodnev
Copy link
Author

thodnev commented Oct 1, 2024

@thodnev no, it's not, and the position of the committee is that that shouldn't happen - TC39 doesn't control everyone else, but neither does any arbitrary person's actions change whether they're appropriate or not.

Thank you for your response. I would like to hear from the original author of the proposal

@ljharb
Copy link

ljharb commented Oct 1, 2024

Sure, that’s fine - but it’s not actually a proposal until it has a TC39 delegate champion.

@arthurfiorette
Copy link
Owner

I do not plan to actually at a "official polyfil" until we actually decide on the first format of it and present to TC39, following their rules is the best way to actually achieve something.

In the meantime, there's a lot of packages on npm that already solves them, my own tuple-it is one of them.

Regarding championing, @ljharb, first of all, much thanks to reply and interact with this proposal, i plan to rewrite this first "wrongly" idea of Symbol.result to the agreed try expressions + feedback from the community, would you like to champion us? Or maybe knows someone who would like?

@ljharb
Copy link

ljharb commented Oct 1, 2024

My personal plate's a bit full at the moment, but I will keep it in mind.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants