From 8b38904edcac3811045963c238748d0aee2b113b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ffrostflame Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:43:02 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] remove accidental drawbacks --- docs/do-not-change-init.luau-or-relative-require-semantics.md | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/do-not-change-init.luau-or-relative-require-semantics.md b/docs/do-not-change-init.luau-or-relative-require-semantics.md index baa133e..cccc5d6 100644 --- a/docs/do-not-change-init.luau-or-relative-require-semantics.md +++ b/docs/do-not-change-init.luau-or-relative-require-semantics.md @@ -16,10 +16,6 @@ There are a lot of projects which do rely on the current semantics, and changing Do not change the behavior of requires when it comes to init.luau & relative requires. -## Drawbacks - -The mismatch between the type of `...` in function declaration (`number`) and type declaration (`...number`) is a bit awkward. This also gets more complicated when we introduce generic variadic packs. - ## Alternatives Don't implement this RFC, and instead rely on the Luau maintainers to make the call. This is kind-of fine, because regardless of what the outcome is, the vast majority of Luau users are not using require-by-string.