| 23:45 | <shu> | bakkot: did you get a chance to look at the ecmarkup PR yet? |
| 23:45 | <bakkot> | shu: started reviewing, haven't gotten back to it |
| 23:46 | <bakkot> | it's at the top my stack now though |
| 23:49 | <shu> | no hurry, was just wondering if you had discussed it yesterday when i couldn't open my eyes |
| 23:50 | <bakkot> | we did a bit |
| 23:51 | <bakkot> | Michael Ficarra was of the opinion that we'll probably always have a fixed number of effects and so it would make more sense to have each be its own attribute, rather than having a comma-separated list |
| 23:51 | <bakkot> | also I was wondering about whether the is-invocation attribute should be preserved at runtime - leaning towards no |
| 23:56 | <shu> | agreed that it shouldn't be preserved at runtime, was just oversight on my part for not removing |
| 23:57 | <shu> | i initially started with a separate attribute, but found it unwieldy to type to have an empty <dd> |
| 23:57 | <shu> | independently i think it's nice to have the effect names propagate as-is so adding new ones don't require ecmarkup changes |
| 23:57 | <shu> | that may be overly optimistic, though, if they need special propagation rules |
| 23:59 | <shu> | Michael Ficarra: what's the reason for preferring separate attributes? |