On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:50 PM Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I hesitated too, however I think we can't escape this feature. Like it
> was for the annotation, we need to find a compromise.
>
> Your points are valid so I wonder if the RFC could be modified and get
> to the point we could reach that compromise. There will be the
> oppositions for the features as a whole, however I am optimistic about
> our abilities to get there this time rather than wait yet again a few
> years for something we know we will have anyway.
>

I will certainly be making changes before bringing this RFC back if it is
rejected. What exactly those changes are I am not certain yet, but the
feedback I receive here from voters will obviously have a large impact on
that. As i mentioned elsewhere, swapping to a magic method syntax would be
about 2-3 hours of work, I could do that very quickly. But I don't want to
make a change like that after the voting has started, so any such changes
will have to wait. I suppose the alternative would be to withdraw the RFC
now that a wider variety of voters are providing feedback than the other
three threads.

Jordan

Reply via email to