Stage 3 Checklist

[rricard]

• Spec text
• Reviewers
  • @ljharb
  • @rkirsling
  • @brad4d
  • You? Let @rricard:mozilla.org know on matrix if you want to be a reviewer.
• Editors
  • @bakkot
  • @syg
  • @michaelficarra

Action Items

• Move JSON.parseImmutable to a separate Stage 2 proposal: JSON.parseImmutable as a separate companion proposal #330
• Items being discussed:
  • Writeable wrapper objects for symbol keys? Should we allow the wrapper object to have additional symbol properties #137
  • Replacement for brand checking that is not Record.isRecord & Tuple.isTuple: part of Record.isRecord returning true for Record Exotic Objects #333
  • Usefulness of string conversion: part of Record toString: useful, useless, or thrown(in implicit conversions) ? #136
• Review items:
  • Various spec fixups: various: Spec fixups #325
  • Record.isRecord & Tuple.isTuple shouldn't work on R&T object wrappers: part of Record.isRecord returning true for Record Exotic Objects #333 & review: Record(Object(recordPrimitive)) should detect and return internal slot value #329
  • No implicit conversion to strings: part of Record toString: useful, useless, or thrown(in implicit conversions) ? #136
  • Make R&T usable in other existing places of the language: Make tuples usable as "entry" objects #107, Expand R&T support across methods that accept objects and arrays #264, Allow Records and Tuples where objects/arrays are currently allowed/supported #318, using Records where only Objects are currently permitted: [[Prototype]]? #326
  • Remove IsConcatSpreadable checks from Tuples, explicitely check for Arrays and Tuples: change Tuple#concat to spread on IsArrayOrTuple, not IsConcatSpreadable #328, Avoid looking up @@isConcatSpreadable for tuples. #334
  • Record.isRecord & Tuple.isTuple removal: Removal of Record.isRecord & Tuple.isTuple #335
• Planned Editorial Changes
  • ECMA262 name clash with "Record": "Record" name clashes with spec-internal "Record Specification Type" #96
  • WebIDL Record clash: Naming conflict with WebIDL's record<K, V> #116

---

Thank you all for the feedback in the previous plenary, I hope I listed all outstanding items so far. Special thanks to @ljharb & @rkirsling to have volunteered as reviewers.

[rkirsling]

Opened #345. 🙂

[ljharb]

Opened #349.

[lin72h]

Any update on this?

[acutmore]

Hi @lin72h here are the notes and slides for R&T from the last TC39 plenary (Nov 2022). One of the current concerns is from implementers on the technical challenges of implementing and supporting R&T, and a request to explore if there are ways to reduce the implementation cost while meeting the same core goals.

[lin72h]

Thanks for the links. Really looking forward for R&T coming in 2023