On 2/25/19 6:09 PM, Olivier FAURE wrote:
Yes, this DIP was fast-tracked. Yes, this can feel unfair. And yet, it makes sense that it was fast-tracked, because it fits a priority of the project owners (C++ interoperability + reference counting) and project owners are allowed to have priorities. It's not like this DIP was rushed or has major vulnerabilities (the "mutable copy constructor" thing is necessary for reference counting).
I haven't heard the final decision from Walter yet, but I proposed that in the interest of quality, we will go through the customary two weeks reviews with DIP 1018.
