So, as came up in the "Minimal Specialization" topic, this working group often tackles issues that lie at the boundary of t-compiler and t-lang.
To make that clearer, I'd like to rename this stream to
#wg-traits/t-compiler and create a second stream
#wg-traits/t-lang (or maybe
wg-traits/design). The idea being that the "t-compiler" stream is for implementation-focused questions, and "t-lang" more for "design-focused" ones, but that working group members would be expected to keep up with both. Alternatively, maybe we just want to have one stream (
(And, cc @WG-meta)
I'm not sure whether we need two separate streams, given that we have solid threading within them (and discussions often end up skirting the boundary). what about just #wg-traits?
one question is whether the scope is really more general than "traits" and if it would be worth naming it accordingly (e.g.
I think in general it makes sense to split design and implementation, but for now it's fair to say that a similar group of people are involved with both, so the distinction isn't so immediately obvious
I'm fine with #wg-traits, we can always add substreams where appropriate
OK, I renamed the stream -- though now I see @varkor's comment. It's true, it is in some sense a bit more genreal.
But I'm going to run with traits anyway :P