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
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?