> On Jun 29, 2024, at 10:16, Larry Garfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For clarity (since I know from experience it's helpful to RFC authors to have a concrete
> sense of votes in advance): I will be voting No on this RFC. As both Jordan and Saki have
> explained, it's a hideous hack that doesn't look like it would even work, much less be
> wise. I'd much rather take a second swing at Jordan's original operator overloading RFC,
> which I supported and still support. Let's do it right.
I agree with Larry that I would rather take another look at an overall operator overloading RFC than
to implement this in one specific extension.
Cheers,
Ben