matthieu-m

> What does the indirection of having Handle types give us that we don't get from just using raw pointers? Everything! :) It enables in-line stores, to start with, by...

> (assuming something else in the trait doesn't break object safety -- I haven't checked) Nothing else does right now. I specifically switched to taking `&self` in `dangling` to make...

> Right, but I couldn't use that in that way with Vec, could I? At that point, you're back to implementing data structures by hand yourself. It will depend how...

> What I currently see as blocking concerns (discussed in above reviews, I'll hopefully edit in direct links later): > > * [ ] A resolution for `dangling`/`Vec::new` getting a...

> I don't think I saw anything about being able to use `alloc::collections` types in a fallible way via this proposal - for example, `push` still returns `()` [in the...

> Additionally, if that is the case, given the desire to keep all the methods on the one `Store` trait, `dangling` could I believe stay there with `StoreDangling` being a...

> So, not quite -- I'm thinking of specifically code like the `fst` crate which is designed to allow effectively allocating nodes of a structure in a buffer stored in...

@CAD97 I've been thinking about interior mutability, and it may be possible to avoid it, at the cost of one other trait... and more complex bounds. I would expect that...

> For example, `Box` is used in the example code, and it's the kind of thing that I'd expect users to do as well if this API is accepted. In...

`Copy` is a good motivation. Fixing `for i in x..=y` performance is I would argue an even better one. The performance of the current `RangeInclusive` when used as an external...