Skip to content

Conversation

rbuckton
Copy link
Collaborator

@rbuckton rbuckton commented Mar 21, 2024

PR #180 reached consensus in the July, 2023 TC39 plenary, but there was a typo in the GetDisposeMethod AO that results a normative change that was not intentional nor part of the consensus. It has long been the intent that we should throw early when @@asyncDispose or @@dispose is not found on a resource, but #180 inadvertently lost this requirement. This PR intends to align the proposal text with the actual consensus.

A PR against ecma262 is being tracked in rbuckton/ecma262#5.

Fixes #208

Copy link

A preview of this PR can be found at https://tc39.es/proposal-explicit-resource-management/pr/217.

rbuckton added a commit to rbuckton/ecma262 that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2024
@rbuckton
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@bakkot do you imagine this requires consensus, or is it fair to say this is a bugfix intended to match with the existing consensus?

@rbuckton rbuckton added bug Something isn't working needs-consensus A pull request that needs consensus at TC39 plenary normative Indicates a normative change to the specification labels Mar 22, 2024
@bakkot
Copy link

bakkot commented Mar 22, 2024

I think it's fine to call it a bugfix.

If you're presenting anyway you might call it out, but I don't think you need to call for consensus.

@rbuckton rbuckton removed the needs-consensus A pull request that needs consensus at TC39 plenary label Mar 22, 2024
@rbuckton rbuckton merged commit 0e10d02 into main Mar 22, 2024
@rbuckton rbuckton deleted the fix-208 branch March 22, 2024 20:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working normative Indicates a normative change to the specification
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Shouldn't await using early throw for non-disposable objects?
2 participants