I think the best way is to comment on the PR with your doubts or questions. The more we have comments (with structured arguments) the better informed committee decision will be
6 Likes
Iām surprised I didnāt suggest backticks for the distinguishing syntax, as Iāve said that we donāt have enough uses for backticks.
It would add a minor incompatibility for identifiers in scope; but Iām assuming the new scoping would be highest precedence, not lowest as suggested for a prefixless proposal.
I plan to change my CAPS LOCK from CTRL to backquote as soon as I remember how.
You know what has made me ābacktick-fluentā is not infix notation but markdown on tickets and PRs.
(Speaking of backticks, be aware itās a bad year for tick-borne disease in the U.S. Donāt neglect to check your back.)
1 Like
I have, kind of, in the Github thread. I would say backticks count as a form of stropping 
Indeed, that is what reminded me!
Worth replying here to recognize your groundbreaking nudging.
Everyone, I had a thought about a possible compromise.
Please read my latest comment on the SIP thread https://github.com/scala/improvement-proposals/pull/134#issuecomment-4392978166 and share your thoughts.
Eventually the proposal was updated back to #(hash) based leading character.
The SIP PR is the same one
The implementation has a new PR
1 Like
Third timeās a charm 
After further thought and experimentation with implementation and diagnostics, I decided to adoptās @odersky sigil-free proposal (not limited to enums). Itās aptly named āCompanion Scope Inferenceā.
Implementation:
5 Likes
Sigil-free seems most natural to me, resulting in nice and natural source. I understand concerns about contextuality of this feature, which is a bit unusual, but still I think the benefits overweight downsides.
From the variants offered, I like this most, and I hope this will be accepted.
3 Likes
1 Like