Jonathan Grynspan
Jonathan Grynspan
@finagolfin I suspect this is of interest to you, by the way. 😄
I'll point out that if there's no Java VM, then there's no `jobject` to pass to `Attachment.record()` either!
The protocol described in ST-0017 should be sufficiently abstract. It may be the case that the code in question lives in the JavaScriptKit package rather than here, and just leverages...
This is, as we understand it, expected (and also not specific to Windows.) Nothing in the toolchain needs access to our macros while the toolchain is building.
It is likely that the API for this functionality would live in the stdlib or in a separate package. That API might call an implementation that's in this repo though.
> I think we should consider both ideas, and that could take place during an API pitch thread. The comment is more to the point that I couldn't go and...
In any event I'm also fine leaving this specific PR on the table. I think there's value in allowing these values to be accessible but I don't feel too strongly...
Is it a feature request if you're the one working on it? 🤔
I imagine we'd just implement this as a trait, not introduce a new argument. @stmontgomery Do you recall offhand why we didn't do this originally? Were we just waiting for...
My gut says we'd be okay limiting this to a blanket `.xfail` or `.xfail("...")` and ask developers to just use the function version for the more complex cases. The ergonomics...