Chris Krycho

**Status:** this was on the agenda for this week’s Framework Core Team meeting, but we had a couple of longer discussions about other open RFCs before we got to it....

FWIW I disagree fairly strongly that deep-tracking should be a built-in capability or *especially* a default, but that's my own take only, and I’ll be curious to see what other...

Notably `useState` does *not* have the equivalent of deep tracking, and *does* have (or is otherwise in the space of implementing) equivalents to `useRef` and `useEffect`. I think it‘s one...

@NullVoxPopuli I addressed that explicitly by noting that we *do* in fact already provide support for common mutable data structures. Deep-tracking is its own ball of wax that goes *very*...

I put this on the agenda for today’s spec group meeting (spec group == breakout session from the Framework Team meeting, where we deep dive on technical details of things,...

We did not get to this today (you can see notes on today’s meeting [here][notes]; we covered a *lot*, but didn’t make it to this)—but it’s at the top of...

At our last Framework team discussion of this, we tentatively concluded that the *one* area we might want to leave open the idea that constrain ourselves to match the public...

@SergeAstapov can you similarly update this one? The updates needed (as far as I recall) are: - to match the changes suggested in #811 - to be explicit that we...

@ro0gr thanks for writing this up and sorry that PR ended up languishing. If you reopen it, I’ll help you get it landed!

Hi @jas7457 – sorry we haven't been able to respond here (been very busy since you filed this!). Have you been able to get it sorted?