Chandler Carruth

Sorry for delay in explicitly following up here... > Let me know if I've got this wrong. I don't think so, your summary sounds right to me. > In abstract...

I think this is an interesting and important question, but I want to call out one aspect of how the discussion is happening just so we can keep things focused...

> > > However, in Carbon we want [APIs to be provided by the library](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/1725) > > > > > > That link is to this issue; did you mean...

FWIW, https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/2365 aims to remove the confusion here somewhat.

(removing good-first-issue label as this is now in progress)

> There is also the question: "Do we want unique types for numeric literals and functions?" #144 answers this question for numeric literals with "yes": the type of int literal...

Confirmed with leads, and we're happy with the answers summarized here: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/508#issuecomment-1310532783 https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/508#issuecomment-1310598321 https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/508#issuecomment-1312222800

Fundamentally, I think Carbon should consider the `+` operator symbol to represent some kind of "add" operation where "add" is an abbreviation for _addition_. The *language* should not decide that...

> @chandlerc Would you like to weigh in on the CFront-style transpiler is something we want to support? I'm not opposed to some folks working on this if they want,...

> > while these points may argue against using this strategy for these two efforts, they don't necessarily argue against having such an implementation for other reasons. > > I...