The review ended September 14th. There were a few concerns that were brought up, with one that clearly stood out: naming. Given this feedback, the core team decided to re-run the review to rename the attribute based on the suggestions that garnered traction during the review. There will be a new review review thread with the renamed attribute.
Additional concerns that were brought up were around the documentation of the feature as well as concerns around tooling with things such as diagnostics. There has been work to address this feedback as well with improvements to the documentation in the proposal and additional diagnostics in the compiler.
There was some feedback over additional features such as enabling stateful builders and handling for the
Void types. These avenues of exploration may be interesting and the current proposal does not prevent them from being explored. The core team did not see a strong reason that these must be in scope for the initial proposal.
Bringing up ideas for future expansions is useful feedback as it can spur additional discussion around the feature and see possibilities for future directions as well as how it composes with new ideas. But new ideas that can be added through follow-on proposals should not hold up acceptance of a proposal unless their absence causes specific problems with what is being proposed. The evolution process is designed to be incremental and to ensure that such future work is possible. Features are not complete with their initial proposal and implementation, but rather lay the groundwork for future enhancements.
Thank you to everyone who participated in the review!