>> On Sep 14, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Rowan Tommins email@example.com>
>> I think that's only true because you've actually proposed a number of
>related but different features.
>See my other email to the list asking about what is in-bounds and what
>it out-of-bounds regarding RFC discussion.
>I seemed logical to me to discuss how to improve an RFC, but maybe what
>you are saying is that we are only suppose to discuss RFC as it exists
>today in order to give a black and white, up or down vote on the entire
>RFC? That seems counter-productive, but if that is the case and others
>concur then so be it.
I'll try to reply in detail later, but to clarify, I was not saying that your message was off topic. What I was saying was that what you described as one feature with lots of applications seems to me like lots of features with overlapping syntax.
There's nothing wrong with that, but it means that we don't get some of the stated benefits unless/until all the features are implemented, and I think it's useful to break down what each feature gives on its own.