Hey all, >> It's important to plan for the future and come up with a holistic solution. >> I don't want to end up in a situation where in hindsight we shouldn't have >> allowed a "set hook" for example and should've just left readonly alone. > > I honestly cannot come up with a reason for why this would be the case.
@Niels I saw you voted “no” for `set`. I double checked the full RFC discussion. You didn’t participate at all until the very end. Both mails were on a meta-level. None one your mails had any arguments which would justify your vote. I don’t understand your vote. Would you mind to elaborate? @Tim I saw you voted “no” for `get` (expected, and understandable), and decided to be abstinent to `set`. I double checked the full RFC discussion. You asked four times explicitly, and one time indirectly, to allow `set` but not `get`. Would you mind to elaborate why you decided to not vote “yes” for what you asked for? — As a new participant, I have difficulties to understand these kind of “politics” here. What was this six weeks discussion exactly for if decisions apparently are taken in “other channels” that are not the officially documented ones? Thank you. Cheers, Nick
