> > It was REALLY obvious that there was a lot of blind copy-pasta
> > lurking around as I audited everything.
>
> I appreciate the work you did to audit this! But we should make it
> easier, not harder, for the compiler to audit mistakes if we're going
> to make tree-wide changes; this appears to be strictly a regression on
> technical grounds, for a change in cosmetics. The same audit outcome
> could have applied just as well to the type-safe(r) API we had.
having looked at this issue closely, and spent the last few
days pondering, i've come to agree quite strongly with
Taylor's POV here.
please, can we revert and re-do with a type-safe API.
thanks.
.mrg.
