On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 2:05 PM Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.il...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry Dan, at the time I sent this e-mail I wasn't aware you wouldn't > receive it. After not hearing from you I assumed you were ok with my > response. > > > The issue is that as your words are written, it is not possible for me > > to understand exactly what you mean. > > To be fair, you omitted the next sentence which does answer your > question, admittedly not as concretely as it should have: > > > IMO this is clear enough that a message for this edge case is not > necessary. > > So to answer your question more directly, no error message was added. > > > The RFC as currently stands hasn't been updated since it was initially > > put to discussion. Which means that anyone just reading the RFC won't > > be aware of this issue that was brought up during the discussion. > > Again, to be fair, yours was literally the only criticism I received. > And that example was taken from the RFC so it was already documented. > > Either way, I'm not opposed to a warning. What are the rules here, can > I add this small change after voting has started? > FWIW I (strongly) don't think a warning should be added for this. The only thing wrong here is calling this an "exception to the rule" in the RFC. This is completely standard and expected behavior given the specified precedence. It is in the nature of precedence that there will always be cases where the use of () is required, and this is one of them. Regards, Nikita
