Skip to content

Moving forwards on named function types #17

@madsmtm

Description

@madsmtm

RFC 3476 was recently submitted, which contains many of the same desires as the draft RFC on named function types in this repo.

Would it be welcome if I opened a few PRs to that RFC text, to help move the initiative forwards? As an example of a change I'd make, I think it makes sense to talk about function item types instead of "function definitions" / "fndef", as the RFC text currently does.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    questionFurther information is requested

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions