Re: [VOTE] User Defined Operator Overloads

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:50 PM Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > > I hesitated too, however I think we can't escape this feature. Like it > was for the annotation, we need to find a compromise. > > Your points are valid so I wonder if the RFC could be modified and get > to the point we could reach that compromise. There will be the > oppositions for the features as a whole, however I am optimistic about > our abilities to get there this time rather than wait yet again a few > years for something we know we will have anyway. > I will certainly be making changes before bringing this RFC back if it is rejected. What exactly those changes are I am not certain yet, but the feedback I receive here from voters will obviously have a large impact on that. As i mentioned elsewhere, swapping to a magic method syntax would be about 2-3 hours of work, I could do that very quickly. But I don't want to make a change like that after the voting has started, so any such changes will have to wait. I suppose the alternative would be to withdraw the RFC now that a wider variety of voters are providing feedback than the other three threads. Jordan