> Le 30 mai 2024 à 12:16, Vincent de Lau <vinc...@delau.nl> a écrit : > >> >> We went through a bunch of syntax variations last year, including "public >> private", "public:private", and "public private:set", plus a few others. >> In an RCV poll, public private(set) was the favorite. (See link at the end >> of the RFC.) It also allows for extension to other operations and scopes, >> and for the short-hand syntax. Many of the other options did not support >> those. Thus we stuck with the known syntax that had the most flexibility >> and most support. > > Would it make sense to do another RCV poll now that hooks are accepted, after > lengthy discussion over its syntax? >
At the time the poll was conducted, it was already known that a hooks RFC was in preparation, that could be compatible with either option, syntax-wise. Now, we have hooks that are compatible with both options, syntax-wise. I don’t think that would change the aesthetic preferences of people. But now, we have indeed more information, namely detailed technical information on how the two features (hooks and aviz) interact effectively with references/arrays/readonly. At the time the poll was conducted, I was *moderately* in favour of the Swift-style syntax, mostly based on the general principle that things that are logically orthogonal should be implemented as orthogonal. If the same poll is done today, I will be *strongly* in favour of the Swift-style syntax, because I know more precisely how both features interact with arrays and readonly. —Claude
