I wasn't able to find discussion of Observable proposal here, so as mentioned by @ljharb, posting it.

Minimal Observable interface:

type Callback<T extends Array<any> = [], U = void> = (...args: T) => U

class Observable<T> {
    setup: Callback<[
      Callback<[T]>,   // Value
      Callback<[any]>, // Error
      Callback,        // Complete
    ], void | Callback<[], any>>

    value: Callback<[T], any>,
    error?: Callback<[unknown], any>,
    complete?: Callback<[], any>
  ): Subscription

class Subscription {
  unsubscribe(): void


const values = new Observable((next, _error, complete) => {
  setTimeout(complete, 1000)

const subscription = values.subscribe(
  console.log, // "foo"
  console.warn, // Will run with empty message

That primitive seems to be minimal layer needed for interop between existing libs. Too many reactive implementations exist nowadays, and there's friction switching between them due to lack of standard.

Proposal: Retain core API and leave operators to user-land libraries · Issue #210 · tc39/proposal-observable · GitHub

What work would it require to move forward with the proposal?

If you want to propose an inter-op layer, it should be symbol-based. That way libraries can innovate their .subscribe() method signature without forfeiting interoperability.

Absolutely, for interop it defines Symbol.observable:

class Observable<T> {
    // Returns itself
    [Symbol.observable]() : Observable;
1 Like

The proposal in question has had the symbol the whole time for that exact reason among others. :wink: