Chandler Carruth

Just wanted to say the leads did go back over this, and we're happy with the current Carbon design direction here. I wrote up what I think is a reasonable...

Do we need both semantics? I understand the historical reasons why C++ needed them, but I'm wondering if there is a way to avoid that in Carbon.

While not urgent, reading this it seems like we're close to a decision here? Specifically, if we don't try to model both semantics (and allow a future proposal to do...

In addition to what @josh11b mentions, a couple of other points that came up... One: the actual checking of these predicates are intrinsically "template" phase (during late-bound type checking). Before...

Finally getting back here, sorry for all the delays. > Not adding Swift sounds reasonable and I totally agree with the approach of writing a more succinct story, does the...

> Hello, I am interested in contributing. This would be my first contribution so I might need some extra guidence, would that be alright? Yep, this is a good first...

> Perhaps this idea of implicit context parameters could be useful for functions accepting source location information? After all, the current source location is a form of context. Another option...

> Another open question that I think we should consider: are these parameters visible in the function signature? In other words, should we even think of them as parameters at...

> > Sure, but my suspicion is that typical functions will want to access (or at least reserve the right to access) several ambient resources [...] > > So this...

> The two main categories of concern are: > > * C++ keywords, which change, but not quickly (discussed in [this thread](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/2029#discussion_r946121240)). > * Identifiers with specific combinations of underscores...