From 9a911a1455ff8a970798a6ad8c500cd033325a34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ffrostflame Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:42:11 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Move bit about Roblox to motivation --- docs/do-not-change-init.luau-or-relative-require-semantics.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) 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 1052e8a..baa133e 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 @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ There is currently a large amount of debate, and open RFCs, about changing requi The current semantics are widely used, and similar to other languages with relative requires and an equivalent of `init.luau`. The current semantics also make sense, and they do not have any large issues. +There are a lot of projects which do rely on the current semantics, and changing them to conform to Roblox when the ultimate issue is down to "how do we express requiring children in Roblox" isn't great. + ## Design Do not change the behavior of requires when it comes to init.luau & relative requires. @@ -20,4 +22,4 @@ The mismatch between the type of `...` in function declaration (`number`) and ty ## 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. However there are a lot of projects which do rely on the current semantics, and changing them to conform to Roblox when the ultimate issue is down to "how do we express requiring children in Roblox" isn't great. +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.