On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 11:06 PM Edmond Dantes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I guess my main thing is that this RFC should only cover coroutine > machinery: it should not promise "transparent async" or "code > > It’s like trying to dig a hole with half a shovel :) > > I think Rob has got a point that you don't really need to give such promises that lack on details. > > that works exactly the same" OR if it wants to make those claims, it > should actually demonstrate > > how instead of hand-waving everything as an "implementation detail" when > none of those claims can actually be validated without those details. > > All of my claims are backed by tests :) > The problem is that no tests are really provided with the RFC in the PR that can be easily checked. I think it's kind of a problem of all RFC's that don't have implementation (this one have but it's really hard to extract). The people can only guess your intention but cannot really verify them as they could if there was implementation. Kind regards, Jakub
