We both agree that there are other aspects such as documentation of C that can be further improved, and also agree that they should not be part of this RFC.
> strong requirement I was referring to the fact that the cost of maintaining namespacing is not a strong requirement for this particular proposal -- having a clear conventional naming such as `interface_embedded_rust` won't cause the feature to stop functioning, nor will to likely cause the developers in B to stop using this feature, or have confusions in developing the particular feature. It will however, come with benefit of clarity for developers who are interested in Bx but not in B. As a result the requested change, which i believe would be net positive for developer users both in (Bx - B) and B. They are pretty actionable with reasonings that listed above. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/96#issuecomment-1375868703 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/96/c1375868...@github.com>
