Josh Triplett

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 08:16:26PM +0000, Domenic Denicola wrote: > @joshtriplett, are you still interested in this? If so, could you sign the [Participant Agreement](https://participate.whatwg.org/agreement)? It's a new...

@mgiuca Personally, I'm *entirely* in favor of switching to a blocklist, which AFAICT is what Firefox does as well. In the meantime...I feel like this is a list of unique...

I'm still interested in seeing this move forward. Is there anything that would help unstick this? The live VCS landscape has changed in the ~8 years since I originally submitted...

In addition to special schemes, we should also blocklist any scheme containing a `.`, to prevent schemes that look like a domain; see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2011Aug/0238.html for examples of using schemes named...

What's the current state of this? What would it take to move this forward, if someone wants to help with that?

@rfcbot concern need-time-to-read I am *very* excited about this, but like @nikomatsakis I think it'll take some time to review. (One thing I'm expecting to look for in the RFC:...

I've now gotten a chance to read through the entire RFC. @rfcbot resolved need-time-to-read @rfcbot reviewed Thank you for working on this, @compiler-errors! --- I appreciate the explanation of why...

The concern about the proposed `async Fn` syntax has been captured in the RFC as an unresolved question, together with a note ahead of the first use of that syntax...

For reference, to make sure details discussed in a lang design meeting get reflected here: we also discussed several alternative syntactic sugars (including `async fn(Args) -> T`, `async(Args) -> T`,...

We had a @rust-lang/lang design meeting today on the set of macro RFCs. I've updated the RFC to incorporate the feedback from that design meeting. Per the feedback in that...