Niko Matsakis

My current feeling is this: I think the idea of permitting `'static` lifetime when we know that a function will not terminate is interesting. However, unless we decide to let...

(Having written that, though, I am wondering if maybe it *would* be better to make `loop { }` at least behave the same in either model; so that the two...

You could put `mut f: u32`, that's true. It still has the problems around semicolons. The embedded struct feels like a possibility. It seems sort of odd though to include...

> We've also talked from time to time about allowing method declarations within struct declarations, as a shorthand for writing inherent impl blocks. Presumably we'd run into all the same...

I guess it would make sense to flesh out the various syntax options more concretely. There is definitely a diversity of opinion on this topic. I think one particularly important...

ok, I updated the main text to reflect various alternatives. Let me know if anything is unclear or different from how you would have expected it.

@aturon > I have a pretty negative reaction to the let syntax, because it goes afield of both the meaning of the word "let", and any existing use of it...

Having let this sit for a while, I think I've come around to the "anonymous" `struct` syntax: ```rust trait Foo { struct { (mut? field: Type),* } } impl Foo...

@lxrec > I'm coming around to struct {} in part because, as you say, it specifies that "implementing types must be structs", and I'd completely forgotten to consider enums and...

@burdges > Would more finer-grained disjointness rules be expressed by grouping or something else? I shouldn't really have mentioned that, I think. It's hard to know what's the best design...