[whatwg/streams] Editorial: move from internal slots to associated concepts? (#1048)

In #1047, we migrated from ES-style "records" to web-style "structs". That got me thinking: should we migrate from "internal slots" to "associated concepts"? I'm not sure what the precise terminology is, but for example a `Request` class in fetch has an ["associated request"](https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-request-request), ["associated headers"](https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#request-headers), etc. For streams, a `ReadableStream` would have an "associated disturbed flag", an "associated readable stream controller", etc.

This would allow cross-linking between concept definitions and their usages, and eliminate the problem from #825 entirely. We could also get rid of [this note](https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/commit-snapshots/2b51f36d9e3bf9c451dcbd1740131853faffe23f/#conventions) about our "foreign JavaScript specification conventions". 🙂

I suppose this will require a much bigger change than #1047, since we use internal slots much more than we use records.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/streams/issues/1048