Proposal: require spaces around the dot operator

[Greg Weber]

This proposal stands on its own
* the dot operator is inconsistent with Module function selection.
* we are allowed the option of expanding the usage of the dot without
spaces if this proposal goes forward.

The point is that we will decide whether or not to expand the usage of
the dot in the *future*. We could decide on a completely different
usage than record field selection.

If this proposal is not compelling enough on its own we should merge
it with other proposals and discuss them together as a single new
concrete proposal.
Let me know if that doesn't make sense. I am unfamiliar with the
process for this mail-list and obviously led things in the wrong
direction.

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy <rl at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> On 12/02/2012, at 02:04, Greg Weber wrote:
>
>> I am sorry that I made the huge mistake in referencing future possible
>> proposals. If this proposal passes, that has no bearing on whether the
>> other proposals would pass, it just makes them possible.
>>
>> Please help me fix my error by stopping all discussions of future
>> proposals and focusing solely on the one at hand.
>
> But if we don't consider those future proposals, then what is the justification for this one? It does break existing code so there must be some fairly compelling arguments for it. I don't think it can be considered in isolation.
>
> Roman
>
>