Morning all, The initial RFC was clear that nullability was not supported, however that doesn't seem to be have widely understood.
When I said we should move forward I did imagine that there was some consensus about the syntax we should use if we were to support nullability. As this conversation has progressed it has become clear that we don't have that consensus, and many people are just not comfortable trying to build consensus this late in the cycle. The RFC is not passing currently so I don't think we actually need to do anything, except prepare to deploy the feature that was voted in, pure intersections. The RFC should be allowed to complete, it's gathering important data. In the end, I'm not as happy to make an exception as I was when the discussion started. Cheers Joe On Monday, 16 August 2021, Deleu <deleu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:22 AM Tobias Nyholm <tobias.nyh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hey. >> >> > No mistake: the "pure intersection types" RFC was explicitly designed >> to avoid scope creep (this RFC). >> >> >> Just because it was intentional, does not make it less of a mistake. >> I see that we have different views of this. And I understand that you are >> happy with this change, but only for 8.2. >> >> > I hope one day I'll have built up so much experience, knowledge and > confidence to call a 30 x 3 vote of the selective people that can cast a > vote "a mistake". > > -- > Marco Aurélio Deleu >
