Blake Embrey

@HerringtonDarkholme Thanks. My initial issue has mentioned that, but I omitted it in the end as someone would have a better syntax anyway, turns out they do 😄 @DanielRosenwasser That...

@rotemdan See the above answer, there's the generic type `Extact` instead which is a more solid proposal than mine. I think this is the preferred approach.

@ethanresnick Why do you believe that?

@mohsen1 I'm sure most people would use the `Exact` generic type in expression positions, so it shouldn't matter too much. However, I'd be concerned with a proposal like that as...

@mohsen1 That question seems irrelevant to the syntax, since the same question still exists using the keyword approach. Personally, I don't have a preferred answer and would have to play...

@leonadler Yes, that'd be the idea. You could only assign `Exact` to `Exact`. My immediate use-case is that validation functions would be handling the `Exact` types (e.g. taking request payloads...

I rolled something similar into the PR here that I've just merged: https://github.com/pillarjs/path-to-regexp/pull/363

There's a history file here: https://github.com/pillarjs/send/blob/master/HISTORY.md#100-beta1--2022-02-04 But I don't see anything that can help me debug the snippet you pasted. Do you have the `filePath` that is now a 404?

This is really helpful, it looks like the package could use some updates to the README and release notes. In this case I think it's due to a change in...

> But I saw you just added Yeah, that's an outdated note in the README. The default behavior in 1.0 was changed to `ignore`, and that's why that file started...