On Sat, Jun 22, 2024, at 12:43 AM, Robert Landers wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear what I meant on scope. I wasn't > necessarily meaning the feature/RFC, but rather the scope of the > conversation. I count at least 12 new types of syntax here (possibly > more that I missed), and I would be surprised if some of them were to > pass in isolation; but as you said, people want the feature so they'll > pass the RFC and we'll get weird symbols that are near meaningless all > over our code. That's my concern here, not so much the feature. I want > the feature too, but there are some weird things in here that could > use longer discussions but shouldn't hold the overall feature back. > > Robert Landers > Software Engineer > Utrecht NL
As stated in the original post, the intent of this thread is precisely that: To ask which patterns we should be discussing/working on now and which should be punted for later. Some of the patterns absolutely warrant further discussion that focuses on them specifically, but the intent for now is NOT to have that discussion, but just to discuss which ones to discuss and which are not worth dealing with for the initial RFC so we don't need to debate the details. --Larry Garfield
