On 11 Jan. 2017 16:29, "Fabien COELHO" <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> I'm lost. This is precisely what I had in mind above with "read-only transaction" which is "warranted not to fail". I do not understand about which point you write "No". I misread. We agree. >> Are you "voting" for or against [Pavel's] proposal? ISTM that you are currently counted as "for". Mixed. We don't really vote anyway. There is no code yet. Code review and testing is where things get firmer. My personal stance right now is that I'd like to see catalog-decared typed variables. I would prefer them to be transactional and would at least oppose anything that didn't allow future room for that capability. I'd prefer that non-transactional vars be clearly declared as such. In the end though... I'm not the one implementing it. I can have some influence through the code review process. But it's whoever steps up with a proposed implementation that has the biggest say. The rest of us can say yes or no to some degree... but nobody can make someone else implement something they don't want.
