| 18:24 | <TabAtkins> | I'll note that we have objections on board to choices that use a binop, even a rare one, because it means we have to have a special parsing environment (a la regex literals) and that's complicated. |
| 18:26 | <TabAtkins> | I'm against ? because there are too many usages of it already, and unlike PFA it's not in a special distinguishable location on its own. If you thought the memes about ^^^ becoming valid were bad, wait until ?.?a??? is a valid expression. |
| 18:26 | <TabAtkins> | oh wait i can make that better |
| 18:26 | <TabAtkins> | ?.?(?)??? |
| 18:26 | <TabAtkins> | wait wait wait |
| 18:27 | <TabAtkins> | ???.?(?)???:? |
| 18:28 | <TabAtkins> | I think that's the best I can do without getting repetitious. I suppose I can throw in a [?] somewhere |
| 18:29 | <TabAtkins> | ???.?(?)???[?]:? |
| 18:31 | <TabAtkins> | (should parse as t ? (t.?(t) ?? t[t]) : t) |
| 18:50 | <jschoi> | I'm against |
| 18:54 | <jschoi> | ^^ remains my second top choice. I remain strongly averse to ## if tuple literals go with #[]. |
| 18:56 | <TabAtkins> | it's cool, we'll just leave it to arena combat |
| 18:56 | <TabAtkins> | or perhaps more realistically, do a straw poll of the remaining reasonable options at the next meeting and just go with whatever the winner is. |