Re: RFC: Single-Expression functions

On Mon, May 26, 2025, at 1:14 PM, Dmitry Derepko wrote: > Thanks for your replies. > > There is no big deal for me to use => instead of Û¨þ†E$—`C. > ‰rËÝ=. Just used to > use =. I’ll change it then. > > Thought there would be more thoughts against the RFC, but the voting > will show these votes. > Could someone help me with the RFC process? Should I open the vote? As Tim said, it needs at least a 2 week discussion period. It's also good practice to give it a few days after the last meaningful change, and announce an intent to open the vote a day or three in advance. Did I miss it or did I not see a PR linked from the RFC? While technically having an implementation is not a prerequisite of an RFC, it is strongly recommended. (Also, having written the original patch, I'm curious if you're doing it the same way I did. It also may be sensible to use the compile step rather than strictly the lexer; moving pipes from strictly lexer to a compile step was a very smart move, for instance, as it simplified a lot of the ancillary behavior around debugging and error messages.) --Larry Garfield