On 2021-12-08 09:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:55 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <stephenjturnbull@gmail.com> wrote:
But the "good idea" of general deferreds is only marginally relevant to our -1s. It's those -1s that constitute the main issue for Chris, since they're a noisy signal that the SC might think as we do.
Please explain to me *exactly* what your arguments against the current proposal are. At the moment, I am extremely confused as to what people actually object to, and there's endless mischaracterization and accusation happening.
Can we actually figure out what people are really saying, and what the problems with this proposal are?
There is one other that I forgot to include in my last message 5. Miscellaneous wrinkles. By this I mean the various sub-discussions about things like what order the late and early defaults should be evaluated in. This is a sort of second-order objection for me, because the objections I gave in my previous message are enough for me to reject the proposal. But even assuming I agreed with the broad outlines, these subsidiary concerns leave enough room for confusion that I would not endorse the proposal. In other words there are too many devils in the details that I feel would lead to difficult-to-reason-about code and traps for the unwary. -- Brendan Barnwell "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail." --author unknown