6 replies

1. Cassey Lottman 13 min later

   @zachleat I have that deep feeling of dread like I'm watching a horror movie and you can tell the scary part is about to start

   1. Zach Leatherman 17 min later

      @cassey I’ve just heard a noise in the basement and I’m just going in to investigate by myself without a flashlight

2. Andrew Douglass 22 min later

   @zachleat I saw the temporal polyfills as things to check out. Do you have a quick answer as to why you didn’t use one of those if Temporal compatibility is the end goal?

   For context where my mind is at, my date fields are Temporal ZonedDateTime strings so I’m currently making use of addDateParsing.

   1. Zach Leatherman 37 min later

      @ardouglass I think if I started the process over again with what I know now I probably would have used one of those! I would probably even recommend other folks use those instead too.

      Even more so when tree shaking lands in that smaller polyfill too: https://www.npmjs.com/package/temporal-polyfill#tree-shakable-api

      At the start I wanted more ISO8601 compat (you can see that in parse-date-strings@1) but realized more strict parsing/breaking changes now was preferable to the same breaking changes later (parse-date-strings@2)

      1. Zach Leatherman 40 min later

         @ardouglass so basically, I had the library and test suite already ready, just needed to make some small changes in the library for RFC 9557 compat (and to save ~55KB over the full Temporal polyfill lib)

   2. Zach Leatherman 38 min later

      @ardouglass (great question btw)