Manish Goregaokar

Seems like that issue got resolved, and there wasn't much desire from his side to reduce the stack size anyway. But I see the problem, and nesting doesn't feature there...

> I understand what you mean by `Indirect

Leaving issue open for some form of `Indirect`. The precise design can be figured out while implementing. If we feel like ZeroArray is necessary after seeing Indirect, we can revisit...

So, the promised "complicated thoughts": By and large I disprefer adding new types and traits. On the other hand, adding attributes/toggles/etc to a derive are something I think is a...

> can't use a trait for const construction, which is the actual unsafe part (to_baked is safe) argh. okay, fine, the indirect const function is acceptable, but I still don't...

> As you know, I would rather us work toward getting rid of proc macros. There seemed to be consensus at RustWeek that proc macros are bad, because the pull...

> But, you agree that a trait is needed for the unsafe case. Is this a fatal flaw / should I close the PR, or should I move forward despite...

Oh, sorry, forgot to address that. That's an interesting proposition. The main problem I see is that there won't be source code for unsafe reviewers to look at for the...

I'm looking around and while I see some safe custom `Bake` impls I presume you're saying they mostly won't be served by a parts-based construction. Unfortunate. The unsafe ones are...

> I think it is valuable and easy to review for the safety invariant to be "the input to this function MUST be the output of that function". It is...