> On 2 Dec 2022, at 18:31, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen
>
>> So here’s my last attempt:
>>
>> Please change this behaviour in your rfc.
>>
>> You are explicitly making it mutually exclusive with readonly now, so that’s
>> not a bc break - if/when it becomes compatible with readonly th
Le ven. 2 déc. 2022 à 12:32, Ilija Tovilo a écrit :
> Hi Stephen
>
> > So here’s my last attempt:
> >
> > Please change this behaviour in your rfc.
> >
> > You are explicitly making it mutually exclusive with readonly now, so
> that’s not a bc break - if/when it becomes compatible with readonly t
Hi Stephen
> So here’s my last attempt:
>
> Please change this behaviour in your rfc.
>
> You are explicitly making it mutually exclusive with readonly now, so that’s
> not a bc break - if/when it becomes compatible with readonly the authors of
> that rfc can either keep the limitation as it exi
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022, Paul Dragoonis wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022, 16:32 Christoph M. Becker, wrote:
>
> > On 28.11.2022 at 16:50, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2022, mickmackusa wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can anyone explain to me why it is desirable/beneficial for the DateTime
> > >> c
