Anders Kaseorg

Similarly, - "one sescentillion" == 10^321 == 10^1803 - "one sesmillinillion" == 10^3021 == 10^18003 - "one sescentmillinillion" == 10^3321 == 10^4803 - "one dumillinsescentillion" == 10^6321 == 10^7803 -...

I’m guessing these names were extrapolated from [this Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers), which seems to have some inconsistencies (as noted on its talk page). This may be a more useful source: http://mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html#conway-wechsler

Here’s some code I hacked together from the algorithm described at http://mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html#conway-wechsler. If nothing else, it might be useful as another implementation to test against. Usage: ``` haskell λ> illion...

Ooh, I found another implementation (Python) at https://github.com/sneilan/BigNumberNames. I checked that it matches mine up through at least `illion 1000000 == "millinillinillion"`. (Since I forgot to make this explicit, you’re...

Using standalone mode isn’t a good plan because it would reintroduce zulip/zulip#20593. (For those reporting that current certbot support is *broken*, that’s a different issue: #381.)

If you plan to keep advertising “No null” on the home page, that implies the language should guarantee that safe code cannot even _produce_ a null reference, like in Rust...

@damywise That is how the V playground displays a segfault. Nothing’s changed.

Casting between `Container` and `Container` cannot possibly be valid in general, due to associated types ([playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=0632520f401a5412a5301392836cd02c)): ```rust use std::mem::transmute; trait Trait { type Associated; } struct Foo; impl Trait for...

Okay; is there a proposal for which specific containers? The original example just says `// also okay to coerce inside types`. Here’s another potentially bad example without associated types: casting...

In the case of `BinaryHeap`, the [`Reverse`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/cmp/struct.Reverse.html) constructor is visible, and even if it weren’t, you can re-implement your own copy of `Reverse`. Again, I know you can already break...