Russ Cox

@martin-sucha's example about #c/cons being invalid on Plan 9 but valid elsewhere seems like a good argument for OS-dependent behavior. Assuming we make the disallow list OS-dependent, does anyone object...

The current behavior suggested by @neild is also the same kind of error-clearing that we do in os/exec with ErrDot.

Based on the discussion above, this proposal seems like a **[likely accept](https://go.dev/s/proposal-status#likely-accept)**. — rsc for the proposal review group

No change in consensus, so **[accepted](https://go.dev/s/proposal-status#accepted)**. 🎉 This issue now tracks the work of implementing the proposal. — rsc for the proposal review group

The Allstar FAQ says that we can opt out by creating a file called .allstar/binary_artifacts.yaml in our repo, but I see no reason we should be bullied by a bot...

If we add CallInto or something like it, does reflect.Call go down to zero allocations? It would be good to know we were done with this particular issue, at least...

This proposal has been added to the [active column](https://golang.org/s/proposal-status#active) of the proposals project and will now be reviewed at the weekly proposal review meetings. — rsc for the proposal review...

Indeed, this is a duplicate of #43732, but this one is in the active column, so I'll close that one.

It sounds like people basically agree about the signature (even in #43732): it takes two []Value and returns nothing. But we need a name, and we need to figure out...

What should we do about Call vs CallSlice? We probably don't want to add two new functions. And if we do this, are we down to zero allocations, so we...