FWIW, I also find the direction of moving away from (in my case)
leading-:: pretty disappointing.
I don’t like
leading-extern because it’s pretty verbose. This is okayish in use statements, I guess, but as far as I’m concerned makes it quite ugly in expression position. Therefore I find the 1path-property somewhat moot in the case of
leading-extern: the verbosity makes the ergonomics bad enough to be almost useless.
I don’t like
suffix-: because it is too subtle. The distinction between
: is easy to gloss over, and this makes it have similar problems to the
leading-sigil category of proposals, where we now have another piece of interpunction (which already serves other roles in the language), in the middle of token strings.
Also, before the meeting, it seemed like most participants were leaning towards
leading-::, so it’s quite surprising that the meeting suddenly turned people around. Can someone do a more detailed recounting of what’s so bad about fallbacks, what transition options have been discussed and why they have been discounted as realistic options?
Again looking at the table of proposals, I really want
leading-::: it has the most consistency of any of the proposals, and the least subtlety. Getting to that global optimum in the longer term should be worth going through some pain in the shorter term. Maybe we just have a feature flag for one epoch?