Advance to stage 3

[mathiasbynens]

Criteria taken from the TC39 process document minus those from previous stages:

• Complete spec text

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-promise-allSettled#specification

• Designated reviewers have signed off on the current spec text

• @codehag
• @domenic
• @gibson042

• All ECMAScript editors have signed off on the current spec text

• @ljharb
• @zenparsing

[ljharb]

Blocked by #9

[domenic]

My review is complete, and I give this spec my review-blessing! I filed and commented on a few small issues, but I consider none of them stage 3 blockers. I think #17 is the only one that has me concerned, but as I stated in my comment there, I think the appropriate course of action is just to make the committee aware of it while proceeding.

[codehag]

I reviewed along with Dominic, since it was my first review I didn't have much to say so it was very interesting to go through it. I think this looks good from my side.

[ljharb]

For my editor review, I only had two comments - for one, I filed #36; the other is that while I don't have a better suggestion, the "use a bunch of stateful internal slots" mechanic for effectively making an async loop seems awkward and complex to spec. It need not, imo block stage 3 or 4 - but it'd be super nice to find a cleaner algorithm if we can :-)

[gibson042]

I agree with @ljharb, but note that the algorithm follows precedent already established by Promise.all.

As for my own review, concerns from #27 did not necessitate any changes. LGTM!

[ljharb]

All the more reason to both not have it block this proposal, and to clean both up if possible :-)

[mathiasbynens]

@ljharb Should we file a tc39/ecma262 bug to track that work?

[mathiasbynens]

@zenparsing Since the process doc now says "All ECMAScript editors have signed off on the current spec text" (and not just any editor), could you please take a look prior to the meeting? Thanks!

[zenparsing]

@mathiasbynens LGTM : )

[mathiasbynens]

Thanks, everyone!