notes VS proposal-function-pipe-flow

Has anything changed recently? The proposal has been in stage 3 since November 2022 [1]

[1] https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/HEAD/meetings/2022-11/nov...

If you're curious about the naming scheme (it now goes 0 -> 1 -> 2 -> 2.7 -> 3 -> 4), then you can read the discussion surrounding the name from the last meeting notes [1].

Also, for a quicker digest, Rob Palmer (from the committee) tweeted about it [2]

[1] https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/main/meetings/2023-11/nov...

Dialog for this update is at https://github.com/tc39/notes/blob/main/meetings/2023-03/mar...

What I would like is a "use: 'typechecked'" at the top of the file indicating that the code has already been checked. This would be accompanied by a new proprosal that defines a standard for what is considered checked (for example checking nullablity in the types) and would allow for browsers to make some optimizations. This could also perhaps reduce the amount of necessary runtime checks such that it would be possible to make it a fully sound typesystem with most of the checks done beforehand.

All the meeting notes are recorded here: https://github.com/tc39/notes/tree/main/meetings. You’ll have to do a bit of spelunking in the corresponding agendas and proposal repo to narrow down the exact meetings you’re interested in.

Here's a list of delegates for TC39, but it doesn't list people by their ECMA member organization.

This is a good question. I'm not sure I saw the notes of the meeting when this happened, but all the notes are public here: https://github.com/tc39/notes/tree/master/meetings

TC-39 is a group of people who are responsible for the standards. They have meetings every two months with member-appointed delegates and invited experts. You can check the minutes of those meetings here GitHub repository

If I'm understanding the proposals correctly, the proposal for Function.pipe and Function.flow was rejected, but the pipeline operator is still working its way through the process. (Part of the rationale for rejecting Function.pipe and Function.flow was the perception that users would be more interested in a pipeline operator, at least to start.)

I say "remarkably" because I'm slightly bitter that this proposal was rejected, at least in small part, because of the simplicity of recreating the essentially functionality in user-land with a one-liner.

With thanks to J.S. Choi for his work in championing it, but the Function.pipe/flow (+compose) proposal has been rejected for Stage 1 by the TC39 Committee:

It’s a set of functional pipe utilities and will hopefully be presented next week to the committee by J.S. Choi: https://github.com/js-choi/proposal-function-pipe-flow

There's now a separate proposal for an stdlib Function.pipe.