> Please go ahead! Thanks for caring.
> And if you already have the patch ready for hasAttribute() too but just care
> enough to leave it to the wanna-be-first-time-contributor that I am, please
> consider sharing it to me so that I can compare with what I have once I’m
> back from vacation nex
> In that case, are you happy for me to PR the other two methods I suggested,
> or would you like to handle that?
Please go ahead! Thanks for caring.
And if you already have the patch ready for hasAttribute() too but just care
enough to leave it to the wanna-be-first-time-contributor that I am,
> Alright, I will just ship the PR for `hasAttribute()` then.
> Thanks for the hints and feedback.
> And sorry for the bad posting style, I hope this one is ok.
In that case, are you happy for me to PR the other two methods I suggested, or
would you like to handle that?
---
Best Regards,
*Ollie
>For future reference, please just open a PR with the implementation before
>writing an RFC for those kinds of things. As self-contained, small features do
>not necessarily require them.
>
>Best regards,
>George P. Banyard
>
>PS: Side note, please do not bottom post
Alright, I will just ship th
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 21:55, Robin Chalas wrote:
> FY I started working on the implementation., hopefully it will bring more
> arguments in favor of that RFC which I’m willing to submit asap as well.
>
For future reference, please just open a PR with the implementation before
writing an RFC fo
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 21:24, David Gebler wrote:
> What's the difference between this and what was proposed in
> https://externals.io/message/120799 ? I don't get why this wouldn't
> require
> an RFC.
>
Because it frankly doesn't require an RFC.
I think people are getting confused as to when on
> I'm not opposed to these, but would this be a good time to also add an
> interface for attributable reflection objects, so that we can type against
> that? These methods would all then go on that interface.
I was going for a tiered approach. Once these methods were in, I would propose
adding
> What's the difference between this and what was proposed in
https://externals.io/message/120799 ? I don't get why this wouldn't require
an RFC.
FY I started working on the implementation., hopefully it will bring more
arguments in favor of that RFC which I’m willing to submit asap as well.
—
What's the difference between this and what was proposed in
https://externals.io/message/120799 ? I don't get why this wouldn't require
an RFC.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023, at 6:09 PM, Ollie Read wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A while back, I wrote a lengthy post about suggested improvements for
> reflection, but I would like to come back to address additional methods
> for dealing with attributes. (I have an open git issue here:
> https://github.com
10 matches
Mail list logo
