On 30/06/2024 16:10, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
I strongly favor an opinionated RFC where the RFC author did their
research and makes it clear why the proposal is the right choice and
backs this up by proper arguments. Of course this doesn't mean that
the RFC author should not listen to the list discussion, but the high
level details should be clear right from the beginning. As of now the
RFC still has some open questions regarding "core functionality" and
even intents to leave them as a secondary vote.
In other words, too many cooks spoil the broth.
I won't pretend I had the knowledge and experience to tackle this alone.
I stood on the shoulders of giants to make this PR possible, and even
before PR, I didn't have a clear view when I first casually strolled
into internals. Talking to the experts here helped me find the words I
was searching for and ensure edge cases were considered. That said, I
hope you don't think me soft, this was not a design by committee; the
RFC is a product of my own work and the decisions now made are a result
of my own convictions, bolstered but not coerced by the input of others.
Moreover, now the RFC is finished at version 1.3, I am very proud of
what it has become and stand by every implementation decision made
pertaining to specific semantics; I am convinced they are correct and
would not benefit from any further modification, with the benefit of
experience writing the implementation behind me. I hope you, too, are
equally convinced if you would now humble me with another read.
Kind regards,
Bilge
