On May 13, 2025, at 16:24, Florents Tselai <florents.tse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Robert said—and I agree—renaming the existing _tz family would be more > trouble than it’s worth, given the need for deprecations, migration paths, > etc. If we were designing this today, suffixes like _stable or _volatile > might have been more appropriate, but at this point, we’re better off staying > consistent with the _tz family. I get the pragmatism, and don’t want to over-bike-shed, but what a wart to live with. [I just went back and re-read Robert’s post, and didn’t realize he used exactly the same expression!] Would it really be too effortful to create _stable or _volatile functions and leave the _tz functions as a sort of legacy? Or maybe there’s a nice backronym we could come up with for _tz. Best, David
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
