That’s not true. We have rules. some of those rules allow us to make changes based on that kind of thing, but it’s still done relatively little.
If backwards compatibility is guaranteed, turbofish cannot be "fixed". I can't find the link currently, but from my reddit post on this discussion the crucial quote from a language team member was:
> Our bar for doing backwards compatibility breaks has never been soundness fixes. We have in the past done changes given future-compatibility warning with lints and then made such changes without an edition.
The turbofish discussion also contains this quote:
> This RFC technically amounts to a backwards incompatible change without using the edition mechanism. However, as the RFC notes, a crater run was made and the syntax was not encountered at all.
You can see how controversial that RFC was, and for that exact reason.
Can you point me towards an authoritative post in the turbofish discussion that says that it can't happen because of backwards-compatibility changes? Because before it was locked it seemed that the language team wanted to go ahead.
I've been repeatedly told by language team members that the policy you're promising people doesn't exist. I would really appreciate it if there was further clarification.
My understanding is that, again, some lang team members want a different policy. That doesn’t mean that it’s actually different.
So, can you point me to a comment that tells me that the policy still holds and is as you are presenting it?