tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-management
ECMAScript Explicit Resource Management
JavaScriptBSD-3-Clause
Issues
- 5
- 0
- 17
Possibilities for Other Syntax?
#199 opened by fixiabis - 5
Implementation Status
#242 opened by dreamorosi - 3
- 0
- 11
`using` introduces unnecessary complexity
#244 opened by JadenSimon - 2
- 11
Stage 3 feedback: can we make the number of using decls that need disposal statically knowable?
#215 opened by syg - 1
SuppressedError docs are out of date
#239 opened by bojavou - 0
- 8
- 11
- 4
Identity cover grammar
#224 opened by waldemarhorwat - 2
- 19
`[Symbol.enter]()` Follow-on proposal
#195 opened by rbuckton - 5
A subclass that overrides DisposableStack#dispose must also override DisposableStack#[Symbol.dispose]
#231 opened by rictic - 0
- 17
- 1
Add description of differences between a single declaration with multiple bindings and multiple declarations with single bindings
#202 opened by benblank - 4
"Explicitly Managed Resource" as an object field
#229 opened by dtkdtk - 1
Anonymous using?
#228 opened by joeedh - 1
Spec diff isn't rendering
#227 opened by codehag - 1
What is an expected behaviour if I replace @@dispose symbol after using?
#226 opened by artsiommiksiuk - 2
question about flow
#225 opened by nektro - 9
- 1
Can an `ExpressionStatement` start with `using [` ?
#223 opened by lgalfaso - 2
- 9
- 1
Detecting `using` usage
#203 opened by extremeheat - 8
Can `using` be applied to an expression?
#210 opened by cowboyd - 3
Any chance for an optional name binding?
#214 opened by itsMapleLeaf - 2
GC integration question
#213 opened by guybedford - 6
- 6
- 16
Masking disposable
#204 opened by jasnell - 2
- 5
- 2
Add `@@dispose` to iterator prototypes?
#206 opened by dead-claudia - 7
How to lint legacy usage of new `Disposable` type?
#187 opened by rixtox - 0
- 3
[Question] about `await using`
#192 opened by CGQAQ - 5
- 8
Should `await using` Await for forward compatibility?
#189 opened by mhofman - 9
- 3
test262/test/built-ins/AsyncIteratorPrototype/Symbol.asyncDispose/return-val.js
#193 opened by patrick-soquet - 4
SuppressedError.sizeLimit
#190 opened by loynoir - 1
SuppressedError.xxxLimit
#188 opened by loynoir - 2
Genuine question: Why not use already existing syntactic conventions a-la `for of` ?
#186 opened by lichrot - 4