AEX: <to be assigned by editors>
Title: <AEX title>
Author: <a list of the author's or authors' name(s) and/or username(s), or name(s) and email(s), e.g. (use with the parentheses or triangular brackets): FirstName LastName (@GitHubUsername), FirstName LastName <[email protected]>, FirstName (@GitHubUsername) and GitHubUsername (@GitHubUsername)>
License: <license names, abbreviated>
License-Code (*optional): <license names, abbreviated>
Discussions-To: <URL>
Status: <Draft | Review | Last Call (yyyy-mm-dd to yyyy-mm-dd) | Final | Active | Updated | Superseded | Rejected | Withdrawn>
Type: <Interface | Informational | Meta>
Created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
Requires (*optional): <AEX number(s)>
Replaces (*optional): <AEX number(s)>
Updates (*optional): <AEX number(s)>
This is the suggested template for new AEXs.
Note that an AEX number will be assigned by an editor. When opening a pull
request to submit your AEX, please use an abbreviated title in the filename,
aex-draft_title_abbrev.md.
The title should be 44 characters or less.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the AEX.
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
The motivation should clearly explain why existing specifications are inadequate to address the problem that the AEX solves. AEX submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new or changed feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations.
The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
All AEXs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The AEX must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. AEX submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
The implementations, if applicable, must be completed before any AEX is given status "Last Call", and it needs be completed before the AEX is accepted. There is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, but the principle of "rough consensus and running code" is still useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.
Copyright and related rights go here if the License and License-Code
fields don't cover the copyright requirements.