On 06/04/2021 09:04, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> I see. Okay, thanks for the clarification and yes, if this was explicitly
>> mentioned in the RFC it would be great. Although, the validity of your
>> example was not in question. Rather something like:
>>
>> container foo {
>>
Michal Vaško writes:
> On Saturday, April 03, 2021 15:07 CEST, Ladislav Lhotka
> wrote:
>
>> Andy Bierman writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 12:49 PM Michal Vaško wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Eric,
>> >>
>> >> thanks for the answer.
>> >>
>> >> On Friday, April 02, 2021 15:43 CEST, "Eric
On Saturday, April 03, 2021 15:07 CEST, Ladislav Lhotka
wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 12:49 PM Michal Vaško wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Eric,
> >>
> >> thanks for the answer.
> >>
> >> On Friday, April 02, 2021 15:43 CEST, "Eric Voit (evoit)"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi
Andy Bierman writes:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 12:49 PM Michal Vaško wrote:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> thanks for the answer.
>>
>> On Friday, April 02, 2021 15:43 CEST, "Eric Voit (evoit)"
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Michal,
>> >
>> > This sounds like a tooling issue to me. I would expect that any augments
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 12:49 PM Michal Vaško wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> thanks for the answer.
>
> On Friday, April 02, 2021 15:43 CEST, "Eric Voit (evoit)"
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > This sounds like a tooling issue to me. I would expect that any augments
> > would inherit the conditional
Hi Eric,
thanks for the answer.
On Friday, April 02, 2021 15:43 CEST, "Eric Voit (evoit)"
wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> This sounds like a tooling issue to me. I would expect that any augments
> would inherit the conditional nature of anything augmented.
Perhaps, but there is nothing in the
