Re: [RFC] Nullsafe calls

Hi! > On 9 Dec 2014, at 23:31, Josh Watzman <jwatzman@fb.com> wrote: > >> 2) It’d probably be better if you made a language specification patch before, not after, >> the RFC is accepted. Having to specify the syntax and semantics formally can make what the operator >> does clearer and help to spot issues. Plus, going forward, the language specification should not be >> an afterthought. > > Definitely not an afterthought. I just want to get through all of the "not clear if > it's going to work" bits -- first, the feasibility of the actual implementation, then > whether the RFC got good reception on internals. I'll make sure to have a spec diff before the > RFC goes up for a vote -- does that sound good? Yes, that sounds good, thanks! -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/