On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 6:44 PM David Rodrigues <david.pro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Partially. As the usage definition has not yet been decided between > private(set) vs. private:set, so this feature is not ready for preview. > Unless the idea of allowing the two syntaxes to co-exist in this feature is > acceptable (which I personally think is a bad idea). > > If a "preview" doesn't allow us to make breaking changes, then what exactly is the point? I don't see any benefit at all to this without that. If the "preview" is *actually* just "put out an RFC in the next patch release as soon as it's merged to master", which is what it seems you're saying (as that seems like all that's left with all the things you said we can't do in a preview), then that seems dubious, prone to instability in the engine outside of the preview features, and a total breakage of the release cycle and RM process that is currently in place. Jordan
