gabby

@f-f @sjakobi @joneshf: What if we enforced the "at most one open import" rule at the language level?

@Nadrieril @f-f @sjakobi: Alright, I'll support #74 on one condition: that one of its proponents volunteers to standardize it. The reason why is that I believe that in a healthy...

Was there anybody that opposed the idea of "at most one open import"? It seems like that would address most people's use case for open imports, including @Twisol's use case

@ari-becker: There's not a way to do this that I'm aware of. The reason why reordering the union types does not help is because the schema is interpreted (including normalization)...

@ari-becker: Yeah, I think that should be possible to implement a feature like that. I think the main guidance I need from others is if we should do this by...

I probably won't be able to get to this soon, but I'd accept a pull request adding support for this if somebody were interested in implementing this

@cspollard: Just to clarify one thing: the linter does not normalize any expressions. The only thing the linter does is: (A) parse the expression, (B) apply some lint-related rules, (C)...

I think the fundamental problem here is that we don't have a good rule of thumb for what parts of the user's code we should preserve and what parts we...

I think this is possible, but with certain constraints: * It would need to be a keyword rather than a built-in * It would need to be resolved at import...

@f-f: Yeah, I think that would be a great idea!