That’s why I qualified it with “at least in the past” . The community as a whole has been moving away from over-cleverness, and I am thankful for it, but I don’t think it’s disputable that the history casts a long shadow. It’s not surprising that someone seeing /:#<< or =++> operators in the standard library or toolchain will assume it to be idiomatic and follow suit. It’s good that there is now broad consensus that those experiments in language/API/library design didn’t pan out, and I’m glad for all the efforts to try and move things in a different direction.
Perhaps “Research” was the wrong choice of word here. “Experimentation” or “Exploration” may be a better fit for what I mean
My concerns with the current proposal still apply though, and I agree with others saying that needing to put ~ in every single standard library method taking a Seq or IterableOnce seems pretty invasive.
The original proposal does mention type-inference performance though. I’d be willing to suffer quite a lot of inconvenience for a sufficiently large speedup…
. The community as a whole has been moving away from over-cleverness, and I am thankful for it, but I don’t think it’s disputable that the history casts a long shadow. It’s not surprising that someone seeing