On Fri, Jan 31, 2025, at 5:03 AM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Hi > > Am 2025-01-31 00:58, schrieb Larry Garfield: >> I don't know how to interpret the radio silence from the list, but this >> seems like an obvious and good follow-on to the previous RFC and has my >> support. > > We also interpreted the lack of responses as “this is an obvious > follow-up and I don't have any questions or concerns”, especially since > FCC support also came up in the discussion of the Closure RFC and was > split into a separate RFC primarily to give each of these features the > proper attention with regard to implementation and edge cases. In > hindsight this was the correct decision, since the implementation for > FCC was much more complicated and edge-casey than initially expected, > whereas Closures were reasonably straight forward. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus
Purely out of curiosity and for educational value, what was so complicated about it? I would have expected it to be straightforward. --Larry Garfield
