Several SIPs on the list do have implementations in Dotty, so I believe we can mark them completed.
That effectively means that you can bypass the SIP process by implementing in Dotty. If that’s indeed the right way to go, then it’s questionable why other features that are not merged in dotty do need to go through the full SIP process.
If others should still be considered, it would be good to bring them up now.
Yes, I’m bringing them up now. I think the others should still be considered.
E.g. Quote Escapes for Interpolations looks like a candidate fitting the criteria. We’d need a PR for this, though.
That’s the most trivial SIP of the lot, and spending much time on it is IMO akin to spending a lot of time to trailing commas. The implementation is a small modification to a single line of code. A PR is linked in the SIP proposal.
I’m not sure where we are exactly in the process for that SIP. I think one step before formal presentation. The next steps would be that the process lead proposes to discuss the SIP at the next SIP meeting. That SIP meeting would then decide whether the SIP is numbered or not, and an issue to decide when to disucss the proposal itself is opened, and assign a reviewer.
Then, in the next SIP meeting, the reviewer will formally present the numbered SIP. The SIP committee can then decide what they want to do with the SIP.
That process strikes me as overly bureaucratic, but that’s the process the SIP committee has decided on. Changing that process may be a good idea, but basing it on exceptions probably isn’t.
Apart from the mentioned SIP, there are 5 pending SIPs from 2017, 2 from 2018, and 2 from this year. Does the SIP committee really want to say these proposals are too late now? If so, when should they have been proposed?