[00:09:35] <wm-bb>	 <Toby> @vrandecic I think it would help to have more info from the team about this. (re @Al: Those are both good questions! I’m assuming that we wouldn’t be using the converters for “same-language” re-entrancy, but, still...)
[00:11:56] <wm-bb>	 <Toby> Is it likely that the capabilities of the JS date object will expand in the next 10 years? (re @vrandecic: And I am not arguing for one side or the other. I think I would be fine with the 3 key solution for Python, and either the 3 key...)
[00:12:40] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> JavaScript?????? (re @Toby: Is it likely that the capabilities of the JS date object will expand in the next 10 years?)
[00:13:17] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> There's not a snowball's chance in hell
[00:17:03] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Perhaps if TC39 decides to really really care about it
[00:17:40] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> But this kinda thing gets 5 years to get approved if it's a community and TC39 priority
[00:18:41] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> With the actual implementation and if it's not a priority, it'll take decades, if it ever does happen
[00:19:20] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> We requested const and let for *12 years* before ES6
[01:12:24] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> I think we should really have a separate on-wiki place for these more technical discussions. Flooding the telegram with a bunch of hard to follow and hard to find discussion doesn't seem like the best move
[01:14:20] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> I'll leave it here as well, I'm opposed to the idea of re-entrancy as a whole. (re @Toby: @vrandecic I think it would help to have more info from the team about this.)