yulia
yulia
We still want to do this. I just need to refresh my memory on it, thanks again for ping.
I think we also had a change to eval (I think indirect eval) to enable jits to do certain kinds of work… do you know why the change to wasn't...
> I think it's the same goal. It's no sense to check not fully instantiated object. There is some sense in checking this: object construction can fail. So, if you...
> I will be VERY VERY VERY frustrate if now committee refuse this proposal by the reason "because the happy path we don't need class.hasInstance". This isn't what is happening...
> And another problem is it's hard for me to imagine how we could have a much general "brand check" out of classes. It seems currently only classes need that....
I think we are talking past each other. Lets take ergonomic brand checks out of the picture. It has been an unhelpful distraction to this proposal. You have mentioned that...
> The way I’d describe it is: zInst has all the slots/fields/constructor behavior of Z and Y, and has all the methods of Z, Y, and X - so it’s...
Interestingly we have the following for yInst in this case: `console.log(yInst.equals(yInst)) // false` (this makes sense, i just wasn't expecting it with the model i was using here) > but...
yep, i think that would also work. I do think that this is a valuable piece of information to have and would warrant this proposal. This issue would be resolved...
I understand the desire to get past this, but at present, the readme makes it clear that `js:` is only TC39. This is a critical issue from our perspective, as...