That's exactly right. We are not choosing between change / no change, we
are choosing between three possible changes:
1. Current proposal: only add support for @_
2. Amendment sans recursion (if revised): add support for @_, @(_ :: k), _,
and (_ :: k)
3. Amendment with recursion: add support for arbitrary combinations of @,
_, ::, and ( ... )
It's going to be breaking in all three scenarios, unless we come up with a
compatibility layer using pattern synonyms as Adam suggests (I have not
investigated the feasibility of that).
Vlad
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:59 PM Malte Ott
Thanks for the input Vlad. Regarding the breaking change to TH: Do I understand you correctly that the required changes from 425 have not landed in 9.10 and therefor accepting this proposal will not create anymore breakage, even between 9.10 and 9.12?