There's a misunderstanding about stagnating proposals in TC39, that it's because TC39 dislikes a proposal. It's often not the proposal itself but the work of the champion. E.g. not enough research, poor presentation, lack of arguments or it's a topic which requires extra effort.
We would, to start, need TS and Flow to agree on a complete grammar for the type extensions (so they could be reserved correctly), and then we would have to agree we're willing to reserve it.
-
-
I don't mean TS and Flow have to agree on the exact syntax, but you can't actually reserve syntax without defining it in the grammar ("the stuff after the colon" doesn't tell you where to stop).
-
someFunc(): T => U { } call(T => U) call((i: T => U) => i) All valid TS, but not trivial to reserve type syntax in those positions (especially with recursive type definitions).
-
Whew. I guess I have nothing to worry about for now if we'll be waiting on agreement between tc39, Flow & TS camps. Don't mind me, I'll show myself out... Back to writing
#ReasonML
pic.twitter.com/oRr6TzwZv4 - End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
