Re: RFC 23 (v3) Higher order functions

[Steve Fink]

Damian Conway wrote:
> 
> It was simply attempting to explain why I choose to ignore what are (to
> me, at least) trivial implementation issues, well documented in the
> compiler literature. I choose to ignore them because I *have* to ignore
> them or my brain is going to melt.

So perhaps you should ask people to contribute implementation notes
sections to your RFCs rather than entire RFCs? And no sense in requiring
that for the initial version, though a solicitation in the text of the
RFC itself might hasten their appearance.

And if the worst happens, I've found that those rubber test tube
stoppers fit quite snugly in the ears for cases of severe brain
meltdown.