Re: RFC 218 (v1) C is just an assertion

[Nathan Torkington]

Piers Cawley writes:
> TBH, I'm not sure I want to go too far down that road in this RFC. And
> tbh they seem more like internals issues to me. The runtime behaviour
> this change grants is good enough for me and I don't want to see the
> proposal bogged down in flamage about strict types. Of course, given
> this RFC it's possible to add other RFCs that deal with specific
> dependent language proposals and optimizations.

Ok, I'll work on the RFC for the type-checking.

Nat