Hi
On 2/26/25 07:26, Larry Garfield wrote:
I have updated the patch and RFC accordingly. I think you're right, it does
make a bit more sense this way.
Is this paragraph in the RFC a left-over from before the change? It
appears redundant with the paragraph before:
The pipe operator has a
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 2:02 PM Rob Landers wrote:
>
> I do think it makes sense to have an unset hook though, so long as it is
> thought out well. For example, would the unset hook be called automatically
> during garbage collection?
I would be very wary of adding more ways for destruction to
Hi
On 2/8/25 12:36, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
If the expression on the right side that produces a Closure has side effects
(output, DB interaction, etc.), then the order in which those side effects
happen may change with the different restructuring.
That is a good point. I see you added a precede
On 25 February 2025 23:31:25 GMT, tight.fork3...@fastmail.com wrote:
>On 2/25/25 4:51 PM, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
>> I actually started writing an RFC to rationalise some of this behaviour
>
>I'm glad I'm not the only one who considers this an issue worth pursuing!
Sorry, I wasn't clear: I
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025, at 09:17, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
>
>
> On 25 February 2025 23:31:25 GMT, tight.fork3...@fastmail.com wrote:
> >On 2/25/25 4:51 PM, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
> >> I actually started writing an RFC to rationalise some of this behaviour
> >
> >I'm glad I'm not the only
