Niko Matsakis
Niko Matsakis
@rpjohnst I like the suggestion of `T: Trait X>` as a possible future syntax (and I will add it into the list of options). That said, does the suggestion to...
@rpjohnst The RFC is written with RTNs acting as a kind of "pseudo-associated type"[^1]. The idea is that you can think of traits as having an internal `$Method` GAT with...
> It's probably a good idea to have a projection syntax as well, but since the RFC limits the `T::method(..)` syntax to bounds anyway, I think that can be worked...
@bluebear94 I pushed a variant of your proposal using `let` as a comment. I also added an unresolved question regarding @rpjohnst's point about `T::foo(..)` as a standalone type.
(Side note, I was experimenting with marking comments as "Resolved". I don't think I like it, it makes it hard to follow the comment thread after the fact, but I...
@kennytm thanks! That option wasn't showing up before, but it is now.
@rfcbot fcp merge This proposal has been under discussion for a long time and, in this first week, all the feedback has been incorporated. I'm going to go ahead and...
Hi @matklad, I agree that `Send` is not a perfect fit for async tasks as is. Ideally we would (for example) distinguish `Rc` values that were given to the task...
@rfcbot fcp merge This project goal has been under development and discussion for some time. Since discussion on the thread has been relatively quiet, I'm going to go ahead and...
@matklad > From where I stand, I am 0.85 sure that we've picked the wrong one of the two in this case: I'll gladly use a context object in lieu...