Closed domenic closed 4 years ago
lgtm with a caveat that this wording sounds like it explicitly forecloses some possible future directions of evolution (if, e.g., we want a mode with some kind of interactivity enabled in the future; @KenjiBaheux might be best positioned to comment on that)
I do agree that we want a reasonable sharp/clear delineation in our explainer so that it doesn't end up too muddied by all of the things that could possibly be added but don't exist now.
Hmm, yeah, it might be worth adding a "Potential future expansions" section in the explainer and then referencing that---while still making the case that the default behavior is quite different. But I'm not sure; we've got enough work ahead of us for explaining "v1".
Critiques and suggestions welcome!
I'd also be interested in @jakearchibald's review (I just invited him to the repo so I can formally request it.)