Re: [VOTE] User Defined Operator Overloads

Hey Jordan. On 05.01.22 10:42, Jordan LeDoux wrote:

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.

I'd rather not see more magic being introduced. That would for me be a reason to vote against the RFC. No matter what it does. Just my 0.02 € Cheers Andreas -- ,,, (o o) +---------------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-+ | Andreas Heigl | | mailto:andreas@heigl.org N 50°22'59.5" E 08°23'58" | | https://andreas.heigl.org | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | https://hei.gl/appointmentwithandreas | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Attachment: [application/pgp-keys] OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_0xA8D5437ECE724FE5.asc
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature OpenPGP_signature.asc