fix typo: basicially -> basically

es9/2018-03/mar-22.md

@@ -1030,7 +1030,7 @@ and the other one is the await integration. Let's talk about the F# pipeline, th
 
 WH: What's precedence of the operator relative to the other code in the slide?
 
-DE: It's a bit difficult to describe in the air; you can find the patch on GitHub. Please open a issue if you see a problem to discuss further. Maybe you'll find that the semantics are infeasable. Both are possible and there's a default that is chosen. Michael Ficarra was previously skeptical about this path but found the patch to be a good solution. In this proposal await is kinda treating like a pseudo function. We allow it to use it wherever a function may be; it doesn't have to be in between two pipelines but can be at the end. And of course this semantics only come from when you are in a async function--otherwise, await is treated as an identifier. So the status of the F# proposal, there is a Babel implementation but there's no full spec text yet. The specification is contained in a couple different PRs. For this "smart pipeline" operator, Joshua went with a different idea. Hack includes a pipeline operator, it's based on $$ specific token, but we're thinking on using hash. We we were discussing it on the bug tracker, the objection to the hack style is that it doesn't have the same ergonomics. Joshia's proposal supports both ot this syles. The grammar is a bit simpler than checking if it has the hash. (Code samples). Here you can see some things basicially, only a few different syntactic things a permitted in the so called topic style. The attempt here is to avoid ?? cases.
+DE: It's a bit difficult to describe in the air; you can find the patch on GitHub. Please open a issue if you see a problem to discuss further. Maybe you'll find that the semantics are infeasable. Both are possible and there's a default that is chosen. Michael Ficarra was previously skeptical about this path but found the patch to be a good solution. In this proposal await is kinda treating like a pseudo function. We allow it to use it wherever a function may be; it doesn't have to be in between two pipelines but can be at the end. And of course this semantics only come from when you are in a async function--otherwise, await is treated as an identifier. So the status of the F# proposal, there is a Babel implementation but there's no full spec text yet. The specification is contained in a couple different PRs. For this "smart pipeline" operator, Joshua went with a different idea. Hack includes a pipeline operator, it's based on $$ specific token, but we're thinking on using hash. We we were discussing it on the bug tracker, the objection to the hack style is that it doesn't have the same ergonomics. Joshia's proposal supports both ot this syles. The grammar is a bit simpler than checking if it has the hash. (Code samples). Here you can see some things basically, only a few different syntactic things a permitted in the so called topic style. The attempt here is to avoid ?? cases.
 
 DE: For me the most intersting thing about this is the method of having multiple approaches and elaborating them significantly. Joshua wrote a very detailed spec and is working on a babel implementation and he's very interested in feedback on this. He's done a very good job in understanding the hazards. The proposal is rather complex though, the slides only describe part of it; he's dividing this into mulitple features. So one critique of this is that its more complicated. I hope that this can be the start of the investigation. I want to come back to, what do you think of this as a model for thinking on proposals? So here it is longer and it is more labour intensive.. Get some early draft implementations, and get feedback on people actually using them. This is also an example of working with people who are not members of the community and attend community meetings, and in this case 2 people who are just very interested In this case, 2 people who are just interested in writing this feature, are writing spec and explainers, and doing all this detailed work which is nice. I want to think about how we can work with external contributors on future proposals.