On Aug 25 2024, at 6:42 pm, Bilge <bi...@scriptfusion.com> wrote: > On 25/08/2024 23:31, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote: > > It doesn't, unfortunately, persuade me that the behaviour proposed is > > sensible. > > It should. But since it has apparently failed in that regard, I suggest you > take me up on my challenge to implement the grammar you want with a patch and > you will quickly convince yourself one way or the other. The truth doesn't > exist in my head or yours, nor on this mailing list. The truth always lies in > the code, which is why RFC authors are strongly encouraged to pursue patches > where there is doubt, and similarly, I think counter-proposals on the mailing > list should follow suit, otherwise we can find ourselves arguing over nothing.
That's not really how that works -- I mean it's not really up to anyone else to write a PR to implement their version of your RFC just because they disagree with (portions of) the concept.
