Please rearrange and add words as necessary, so that they makes sense :) "... however that doesn't seem to have been widely understood".
Cheers Joe On Monday, 16 August 2021, Joe Watkins <krak...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >
