15:19 <staticassert> I think that in regards to explicit partial functions (?) foo?().bar?() is > than foo()?.bar()? but the latter is more familiar - both Ruby and Rust have syntax closer to the latter

15:19 <staticassert> (I'm catching up on the sync meeting)

15:20 <staticassert> I like the RFC either way though, agree that it's basically down to bikeshedding the syntax and just calling it

15:22 <staticassert> I think it should ideally be 'readable' in some natural language. As in "The function 'foo' is called, and may fail" == foo()? vs "The function foo, which is partial, is called" == foo?() ?

15:22 <staticassert> idk

15:45 <SeanTAllen> best to include that on the RFC staticassert. Not everyone who participates in RFCs is on IRC.

15:46 <SeanTAllen> staticassert: how often are your work retrospectives?

16:41 <staticassert> SeanTAllen: every two weeks

16:42 <staticassert> I'll bring it up on the RFC once I'm done listening to the whole meeting