On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 6:44 PM David Rodrigues
wrote:
>
> Partially. As the usage definition has not yet been decided between
> private(set) vs. private:set, so this feature is not ready for preview.
> Unless the idea of allowing the two syntaxes to co-exist in this feature is
> acceptable (whic
> On 12 Oct 2022, at 11:06, Jordan LeDoux wrote:
>
> If a "preview" doesn't allow us to make breaking changes, then what exactly
> is the point? I don't see any benefit at all to this without that.
>
> If the "preview" is *actually* just "put out an RFC in the next patch
> release as soon as i
Hi
On 9/28/22 17:42, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
If you want to go that route, I'd go all the way to an RCV vote and be done
with it. Or else just make an executive decision as the RFC author and let the
chips fall where they may.
I'm generally not too happy with secondary votes. Sometimes you on
