Nate Foster
Good catch. I've fixed that. (Sorry for the force-pushes. I was trying to rebase and squash these to tidy it up, which is perhaps ill-advised on a public PR.)
> @jnfoster @ChrisDodd If Nate agrees that some of Chris Dodd's latest comments/questions justify changes, it would be good to create a separate issue to track those. The suggestions are...
I'm sorry, the 5pm ET meetings have conflicted with another, so I haven't been able to participate yet. As a sanity check to make sure I understand: the state associated...
@vlstill we'd love to have a PR with your proposed change!
I'm confused... as a CPP define, the compiler has even less visibility. The version becomes just another integer literal. Isn't that a step in the wrong direction?
Looks like @mbudiu-vmw beat me to it.
> I suspect it might be significantly more effort to get for loops added to the language in more arbitrary places than is proposed in the example above. Why do...
How about the following: start with adding `for` loops as statements. That addresses a bunch of the cases above, though not all. Then we can proceed to think about types,...
My meta-point is that I want to discourage us from doing "bolt-on," piecemeal, ad hoc design. It makes the language more complex, and it may actually be more work for...
Sounds good. We will add it to the agenda. -N