<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:1786599334.52238847.1712587087868.JavaMail.zimbra@univ-eiffel.fr">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">
<div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is super confusing.<br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is confusing in part because you are jumping ahead to the one of
the things that I specifically said "we're going to talk about that
later", which is parameterized patterns. (As I've reminded before,
jumping ahead when you are specifically asked not to, means that you
forfeit your right to have an opinion about the topic actually being
discussed...)<br>
<br>
So, I'll ask again: please stay focused on the discussion at hand,
rather than trying to redesign the next part? (And please, please,
please, stop using words like "not", "can't", "impossible", "doesn't
work", etc, incorrectly. It's OK to not understand fully
something. It is not OK to not understand it fully and declare it
to be wrong.)<br>
<br>
I will take the feedback "I wish we had parameterized patterns now",
and I understand why that is important to you now. Now, lets get
back to the topic being discussed.<br>
<br>
(The irony here is deadly. For several years, I've been talking
model, you've been asking "when can we talk syntax", and I've been
saying "wait." Now, finally I am *asking* for a syntax discussion,
and *now* you want to revisit model decisions?)<br>
<br>
If you have no significant syntax opinions here (other than "I
prefer the method-style declaration"), that's fine, just say so and
we can move on. <br>
</body>
</html>