I suppose it could be, but at the same time there are plenty of examples of RFCs that have been abandoned after 1) there was reasonable opposition and 2) tweaking them didn't work out. There just don't seem to be examples of that as part of the ergonomics initiative. Those RFCs feel to me like "change for the sake of change," rather than "change for the sake of solving ergonomics issues."
I'm surprised at this- I see the match RFC as the strongest example of "tweaking details, without ever considering entirely different approaches or simply not making those changes." The two RFCs use virtually identical before/after examples! I definitely appreciate the changes and the discussion did help bring me around (i.e. I'm not trying to reopen the issue), but it still felt like the approach was "pointer syntax must be removed from patterns" rather than the actual cited motivation of "the confusion between ref
and &
in patterns must be cleared up."
Thanks for digging those up (and to everyone who wrote them up)! I do think we're making progress on modules. My frustration this time around is from an insistence on a particular syntactic end result (files no longer corresponding to modules) which doesn't even address the issues listed in its proposal, to the exclusion of alternative solutions. It's not so much "an issue raised is being ignored" or "a downside is not considered a deal-breaker" as "a popular alternative solution is being discounted via token changes to the primary proposal."
So, hopefully that's enough meta from me for this thread. I just wanted to register that I share the concerns @phaylon mentioned- I can wait for your writup before diving into the details again.