Josh Triplett

@dtolnay > If the self argument is not pre-evaluated, it's quite surprising for users: reading a method chain and encountering a macro, you have to revise your understanding of the...

@durka Why *couldn't* it print `false`? My inclination would be for `expr` or `tt` to match, but no other designator. (And another postfix macro could capture it as another `$self:self`,...

@durka I understand what you mean, and that thought crossed my mind too. On the other hand, it can't match `:literal` or `:ident`, because then someone might try to match...

@nielsle > Some users will be confused that a postfix macro can change the control flow even though it looks like a method. Non-postfix macros can do the same. In...

@durka > Can you still use any type of braces? Can I write x.y![] and x.y!{}? I'm inclined to say "yes", because I can think of macros that would look...

On May 16, 2018 1:45:35 AM PDT, Anthony Nowell wrote: >It seems to me that the lack of type identification on the `self` arg >means you can't really get rustdoc...

@ssokolow > I suspect the concern is that newcomers will expect to see it documented as a member of of whatever type it's being called on and then erroneously conclude...

@Manishearth I posted a sketch of a proposal for `::` at https://github.com/Manishearth/namespacing-rfc/issues/1#issuecomment-1063749649 . Happy to continue there.

I think the second of those two policies makes more sense: upon filing a concern go to proposed-final-comment-period (removing any other FCP-related labels), and upon resolving the concern, go to...

The goal of the FCP period is to make sure that everyone has a chance to respond, even if something is posted, proposed for merge, and most people check their...