Hi
On 2026-09-15 14:02, Weilin Du wrote:
I think you've read the RFC further after my latest response regarding
your suggestions. And I think you have no further issues with it
because
you don't send more email to the thread. Maybe I don't have the English
skill to make it clear about what is planned and made.
No, I hadn't taken another look at the RFC yet. I also made it clear
that I had not given it much thought (due to time constraints). But my
schedule should not be a blocker for RFCs to proceed.
>
Content-wise I also don't agree with the decision to keep using
untyped
>
constants instead of enums, but didn't have the time to actually think
>
this through or read the RFC in-depth.
I have discussed this with David in the discussion thread. We all agree
on this.
From what I see not much discussion has happened on that topic. It's
basically just David suggesting it (and me previously suggesting it in
private) and you declining the suggestion. I think we can find a
reasonable middle-ground that makes use of enums, while not precluding a
future redesign of the ext/intl API. I'll send those to the discussion
thread to keep it in a single place.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
