Tim Chevalier

> Thanks for writing up the documentation for this @catamorphism. > > Is the plan to wait until this proposal manages to advance to stage 3 or 4 before merging?...

Sorry I didn't have a chance to look at this sooner. It seems OK to me (neither helping nor hindering, from an implementation point of view). I think a lot...

@rwaldron Could you let me know if I've addressed your comments adequately? Thanks!

@Ms2ger I think I've addressed all your comments. Github still says "1 change requested" by you, but I can't find it anywhere even after expanding all the resolved conversations :/

> > It's not really covered by "invalid expression error" > > Why not? The description of that error is: > > > An Invalid Expression error occurs when a...

`visit(msg, { literal(l) { literals.push(l) })` is shorter, and more easily reproduced in a typed implementation language.

> @catamorphism In the ICU-TC meeting, @richgillam mentioned that when he looked last time, which was a few months ago, there was a discrepancy in functionality covered between our existing...

> @catamorphism this PR is not really still merely a draft, right? No, not really a draft. There's a little bit more to do on the built-in functions, but that...

@stasm suggested that each function should have a single "root signature" and then 0 or more `formatSignatures` / `matchSignatures` that extend it, but as @eemeli said, that isn't currently required,...

Whether regexes are enough depends on the type language: what is the set of possible types that can appear in function signatures? If the type language includes numeric types, finite...