On Thu, Apr 24, 2025, at 17:20, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 4/24/25 17:09, Rob Landers wrote:
> > Thank you for your feedback! I think you would then have the problem that
> > was pointed out by Levi the other day; where you would then have ambiguity.
> > If you could have both private an
Hi
On 4/20/25 15:43, Rob Landers wrote:
As it seems that discussion has mostly died down, I'd like to put this towards
a vote starting on May 1, 2025.
Unfortunately I did not have the time to follow the discussion after
mid-March, so this might or might not have been discussed already. I
ju
Hi
On 4/24/25 17:09, Rob Landers wrote:
Thank you for your feedback! I think you would then have the problem that was
pointed out by Levi the other day; where you would then have ambiguity. If you
could have both private and public names in the same namespace, then you would
end up not knowin
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025, at 16:31, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 4/20/25 15:43, Rob Landers wrote:
> > As it seems that discussion has mostly died down, I'd like to put this
> > towards a vote starting on May 1, 2025.
>
> Unfortunately I did not have the time to follow the discussion after
>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025, at 19:22, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 7:46 AM Rob Landers wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025, at 21:45, Rob Landers wrote:
> >
> > Hello internals,
> >
> > I have significantly revamped the RFC (again). Key changes to the RFC:
> >
> > 1. More (realistic)
On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 7:46 AM Rob Landers wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025, at 21:45, Rob Landers wrote:
>
> Hello internals,
>
> I have significantly revamped the RFC (again). Key changes to the RFC:
>
> 1. More (realistic) examples,
> 2. Since enums are basically specialized classes, they are a
