> On Jun 29, 2024, at 10:16, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > For clarity (since I know from experience it's helpful to RFC authors to have > a concrete sense of votes in advance): I will be voting No on this RFC. As > both Jordan and Saki have explained, it's a hideous hack that doesn't look > like it would even work, much less be wise. I'd much rather take a second > swing at Jordan's original operator overloading RFC, which I supported and > still support. Let's do it right.
I agree with Larry that I would rather take another look at an overall operator overloading RFC than to implement this in one specific extension. Cheers, Ben
