On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 at 16:56, Alex Wells <autau...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 4:01 PM Erick de Azevedo Lima < > ericklima.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe if such a feedback was given before and it was decided to go for a >> trimmed version of the feature, maybe Ilija/Larry could have had less work >> to implement and test all the variantes they've done. I think if a person >> has such numerous concerns, it should be exposed ASAP even if your thoughts >> are not totally clear. If you had a chat directly with Ilija/Larry, they >> would be aware of such concerns and would expend efforts to address these >> concerns. >> > > To an outsider, it looks wild when feedback starts coming in right before > the vote starts. What's even more startling is that there are people with > voting rights who have never participated in the discussion at all, yet > have a right to wordlessly affect the vote's outcome. I sincerely hope > Ilija and Larry's work don't go to waste here. >
Reminder to not run into a sunk cost fallacy. I totally understand the sentiment around the work done, but the outcome is something very impactful. Work may or may not be wasted, but that's the nature of RFCs. The current RFC makes a lot of people uneasy, and JRF's comment resonates strongly with my opinion. To me, further overloading the arrow (`->`) operator with this much added context is a mistake, regardless of how much detail was added in handling all the weird edge cases of the language: in fact, going as far as exploring by-ref semantics (instead of just saying "no" to them) is also a big problem. Marco Pivetta https://mastodon.social/@ocramius https://ocramius.github.io/
