Skip to content

Moving forwards on named function types #17

Open
@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

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions