Bob Nystrom

Oof, this is a gnarly one. I wonder if this is why C# went with contextual keywords `or` and `and` for their pattern disjunction and conjunctions. Given that I borrowed...

I understand the appeal, but I don't think this feature carries its weight. It eliminates some punctuation, but that's really all it accomplishes. In return, it opens the door to...

Since we're not doing type patterns in the initial release of pattern matching, I'm going to label this "patterns-later" so that it doesn't clutter up the list of issues we're...

I'm definitely writing the *proposal*, but it's usually @eernstg who translates that into the official language spec.

Yeah, usually the way this works (as I understand it) is that the feature designer (me in this case) owns defining it in the informal specification until the feature gets...

Yes, I think it's fine to close this. There two remaining issues that are relevant to specifying records, #2578 and #2503. But resolving those will likely not involve changes to...

> Fwiw, I don't think that `[]` on map should actually have the parameter type that it does. It is just really confusing and a foot gun. I think the...

> Is there a reason records don't copy the grammar/semantics of parameter lists? Records do significantly borrow from parameter lists. The record type grammar is essentially a subtype of the...

I'm not firmly attached to the idea of annotations on record fields but I agree with Lasse that users probably will ask for them, especially once macros are a thing....

> The difference (which might be purely wrong thinking on my part) is that it seems like record types don't have a unique declaration; they have one declaration per syntactic...