Re: [RFC] Partial Function Application v2

> On Nov 1, 2025, at 12:56, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2025, at 4:22 AM, Tim Düsterhus wrote: >> Hi >> >> Am 2025-10-30 19:44, schrieb Larry Garfield: >>> The one outstanding question is whether we allow reordering using named >>> arguments or preserve the underlying order. Arnaud says either one is >>> doable. So far, only 2 people have commented on it (favoring >>> reordering). We still want feedback from more people to see if there >>> really is a consensus one way or another. (2 people is too small a >>> sample size to draw any conclusions.) >> >> It appears there is a larger (and unanimous) agreement. This should be >> adjusted in the RFC then. Other than that, I've read through the RFC >> once more and have the following comments: > > Mm, yeah, it would appear I have been outvoted. :-) So be it. The RFC has been updated to > include reordering, and Arnaud will update the implementation shortly. Just another data point—I prefer reordering, too. It seems like the more intuitive experience. Cheers, Ben