But, the rfc is a roadblock to doing so. I cannot impl till an RFC lands, which is not something I can force
-
-
Getting proposed features to the stage where the burden can be picked up by folx who really want is is important
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ManishEarth @whitequark
I agree, but it is a huge amount of work, and important not to get wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nick_r_cameron @whitequark
Right, but the rfc process already lets you talk about that. You can talk about flaws in the rfc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You can propose not-yet-fleshed-out strawman alternatives for folks to discuss.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ManishEarth @whitequark
both of these things are quite a lot of work. We need to be able to more easily triage which rfcs deserve this
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nick_r_cameron @whitequark
This sort of cycles back to the BDFL thing again. The community has no control over this. Only the teams.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Disagree. If one wrote an RFC w/ PoC implementation of stack-allocated VLAs I bet it'd be accepted.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @llogiq @BRIAN_____ and
I'll rewrite my RFC to VLAs (needs a distinct syntax from [x; y] however)&help impl.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That would be awesome. I'm looking forward to `struct Elem { limbs: [Limb] }` or whatever.
-
-
Replying to @BRIAN_____ @ManishEarth and
think of it as a belated Xmas present then.

0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
