Yokinman

Would it be fair to say that `use Type` might be a future possibility? For instance, say you have a type called `Flux` that changes over time with a method...

I feel that privacy goes contrary to the main advantages of enums: 1. Enums only represent valid states. This contrasts with structs where you're often relying on primitives that express...

Trying to think of a better alternative. Maybe variants could be allowed to pseudo-alias a type that they also wrap? ```rust pub enum Expr { Array: ExprArray, // Array(ExprArray) Assign:...

I'm not super against enum privacy in terms of fields, but if it existed I think there should be a way to define "write" privacy independently from "read" privacy. So...

> I disagree. Just because a client of a type shouldn't construct it doesn't make me want to remove the ability of the source of a type to construct it...

As a random user, I think I prefer the alternative syntax of `const` meaning conditionally const, alongside `=const` meaning always const. It fits better with my intuition of what `const`...

Even if it's possible to have an expression follow the signature unambiguously I would still prefer some kind of separator. It seems more future-proof, and it would definitely make it...