VitWW

I'm huge fan of **backward compatibility**. _As alternative_ I've propose to add additional types of ranges and suffixes to ranges. Now: `Range`, `RangeFrom`, `RangeTo`, `RangeFull`, `RangeInclusive`, `RangeToInclusive` (all with `Iterator`)....

If we like `.*` but we have some ambiguity in use, we could use "mix" `->*` as **alternative**, like `p->*.field->*.field`. And since `->*` is longer than `*`, the `*` would...

If we add `is` as a keyword, we should also **reserve** `isnot` as a keyword for _future_ NOT-patterns ```rust if expr isnot Some(x) { println!("error"); } ``` Edited: I'm sorry...

Author mentioned just one alternative **name** for `is`: `~`. But I think we should add another alternative names in RFC, like `equal` or `identic`: ```rust if expr identic Some(x) &&...

> You speak in a commanding way ("we must"), without justification. .... Please offer a justification for your reasoning, and especially, why it should be addressed **now** @workingjubilee I'm sorry...

> I went ahead and removed the "remove" part. Feel free to edit further if we can be more clear. You still need to clean the body of RFC from...

Technically saying, functions require checks for full permutations of possible arguments (which grows to infinity quite fast) and all inner states to make a conclusion of Equality and for **practical...

This RFC is based on assumption, that `try_new_avx512f()` would be simpler and **faster** then `is_x86_feature_detected!("avx512f")` , but would it?

Nice try! It looks like you miss sections "What is now impossible(or extremely complicated)" and "How new proposal solves this complications".