On Saturday, 22 July 2017 at 04:48:34 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 19:36:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
In short, I feel that a more substantial discussion of how we
arrived at the current form of the proposal is important so
that Walter & Andrei can have the adequate context to
appreciate the proposed syntax changes, and not feel like this
is just one possibility out of many others that haven't been
adequately considered.
I think we have to assume they've been reading the prior
threads. If they have specific questions or concerns, then we
have to hope they'll express them here, rather than just reject
the proposal. I'll put you in the author line as a co-author if
you want, as this _is_ essentially your proposal.
I feel like making a list of alternative proposals and why they
were rejected would still be a good idea, both to improve the
quality of the debate in this thread (people are proposing
alternative syntaxes that should be addressed in the DIP), and
for posterity.
