Re: RFC: Single-Expression functions
On Mon, May 26, 2025, at 1:14 PM, Dmitry Derepko wrote:
> Thanks for your replies.
>
> There is no big deal for me to use => instead of =. Just used to
> use =. I’ll change it then.
>
> Thought there would be more thoughts against the RFC, but the voting
> will show these votes.
> Could someone help me with the RFC process? Should I open the vote?
As Tim said, it needs at least a 2 week discussion period. It's also good practice to give it
a few days after the last meaningful change, and announce an intent to open the vote a day or three
in advance.
Did I miss it or did I not see a PR linked from the RFC? While technically having an implementation
is not a prerequisite of an RFC, it is strongly recommended. (Also, having written the original
patch, I'm curious if you're doing it the same way I did. It also may be sensible to use
the compile step rather than strictly the lexer; moving pipes from strictly lexer to a compile step
was a very smart move, for instance, as it simplified a lot of the ancillary behavior around
debugging and error messages.)
--Larry Garfield
Thread (13 messages)