Current State of Decorators

[dcwardell7]

Thanks for all the work that has been put into designing this feature.

I noticed that it was removed from Babel (currently available as a legacy plugin), and that the last commit was made in November.

I am curious what the current state of this feature is from the designer's perspective. Is it still being actively developed? What are the current issues holding delaying it? Are there any opportunities for others to assist?

[marklundin]

There's an ECMA meeting being held in a couple of days on the 25th May in Munich. @wycats will be discussing the proposal and will hopefully have some good feedback.

You can see the agenda here and find the the notes after.

[silkentrance]

@marklundin Might I perhaps point you towards tc39/proposal-class-public-fields#38 (tc39/proposal-class-public-fields#38 (comment)) which will solve existing issues we have when decorating such initialized properties, see jayphelps/core-decorators#62 (comment).
Could this be taken into account when discussing the proposal?

Also, I believe, that #70 and #66 should also be on the radar.

[marklundin]

You can see some of the discussion from the previous meeting in Jan when. Lots of interesting points raised.

[marklundin]

Updated spec here https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decorators/blob/master/spec.html

[fdn]

Is there an updated document since the May meeting? Is there a short diff on what changed since the recent meeting for decorators?

[marklundin]

There's an open PR with Mays notes here https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/pull/45/files#diff-2

It's quite the read, but the long and short is it didn't advance to stage 2.

[fdn]

@marklundin thanks for the update. bummer.

[dcwardell7]

For any interested, the July tc39 meeting took place last week. Decorators are now in stage 2. For all involved, good work. Notes from the meeting are found here.

[silkentrance]

@quicksilver7 now, IMHO the process is flawed. it should be more open in that the ongoing discussions here are participated by the people who are responsible for making the proposal happen by working out the specification details. as of now, there was no participation whatsoever on behalf of @wycats.
in addition this needs to be made a collaborative attempt in regards to @jeffmo and the specification proposal part that he is working on, namely class properties. The latter, as I see it, are a major concern of the people over at angular. And by finding a solution for that, the decorators should be well on their way.

[wycats]

@silkentrance I'm really sorry. The specification and discussion moved to a repo in the tc39 org (https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decorators) and I left this open to allow any open conversations (especially about future features, like parameter and function decorators) to continue.

If you think it makes sense, I can turn this repo into a redirect or modify the readme to point people to the right place.

[callumlocke]

If you think it makes sense, I can turn this repo into a redirect or modify the readme to point people to the right place.

Yes please! A prominent link at the top of the readme would have prevented me wasting the last hour of my life :)