On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:00 PM Theodore Brown
wrote:
> On Thu, July 16 2020 at 3:04 AM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > While I don't think anyone had plans to mix whitespace, this is
> > indicative of a larger issue. While I'm one of the people who voted
> > for @@ as my first choice before, I
On Thu, July 16 2020 at 3:04 AM Nikita Popov wrote:
> While I don't think anyone had plans to mix whitespace, this is
> indicative of a larger issue. While I'm one of the people who voted
> for @@ as my first choice before, I wouldn't do so now (even with
> this RFC accepted). This issue made me
> > > > I have reduced the scope of this RFC to handle just the issue of
> > > > namespaced names, without touching any other reserved keyword
> > restrictions.
> > > > As the discussion shows, those are trickier, with more cases of
> > perceived
> > > > ambiguity that may need to be mitigated.
>
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 09:04, Nikita Popov wrote:
> While I don't think anyone had plans to mix whitespace, this is indicative
> of a larger issue. While I'm one of the people who voted for @@ as my first
> choice before, I wouldn't do so now (even with this RFC accepted). This
> issue made me
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:40 AM tyson andre
wrote:
> > > I have reduced the scope of this RFC to handle just the issue of
> > > namespaced names, without touching any other reserved keyword
> restrictions.
> > > As the discussion shows, those are trickier, with more cases of
> perceived
> > >
> > I have reduced the scope of this RFC to handle just the issue of
> > namespaced names, without touching any other reserved keyword restrictions.
> > As the discussion shows, those are trickier, with more cases of perceived
> > ambiguity that may need to be mitigated.
> >
> > As this proposal
