Hi
On 6/5/24 17:25, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
Thank you, I'll have a look at it when I have the time.
The RFC isn't updated but below is what we have in our drafts. Let me know
what you think already if you want (otherwise, let us work on the updated
implementation/RFC and we'll let you know about them ASAP).
I've already mentioned in the sub-thread with Larry that this is also what I had in mind after Arnaud's clarification, so that sounds good to me.
I'll give the RFC another full read once you finished incorporating the existing feedback. Doesn't really make sense to give feedback on something that still is in-flux and that after all might not exist in the updated proposal.
PS: I understand that the concepts in the RFC might be difficult to grasp.
They were certainly challenging for me to summarize. I would happily accept
any help to improve the wording if anyone is willing.
I've already said it in my email to Arnaud: Examples showcasing the usage of the API in a (simplified) real-world use case would definitely help making the RFC easier to understand.
And for me it is important that any interactions with the existing functionality [1] are explicitly spelled out. I'm happier spending the time reading an RFC that is five times as long, but clearly defines the entire behavior, than reading an RFC that leaves many open questions that will end up being "implementation-defined" rather than fully thought-through.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
[1] e.g. my WeakReference question, instanceof behavior, whether or not private properties are accessible in the initializer, readonly, etc.