Felix S Klock II

I like "Loops and breakable expressions", that rolls off the tongue nicely. ("Loops and labelled block expressions" would also be fine, but I think "breakable expressions" jumps out with the...

> Happy for someone else to push to my branch. Done!

Ah, I had overlooked this issue, but this was one of the things I was thinking about while writing the Allocator RFC (#1398). I believe the `Layout` API presented there...

(nominating because I think the lang team should be aware of the question here.)

@Amanieu can't the layout vary based on the choice of types that the struct is instantiated with, and thus the constraints imposed on instantiations with an unsized type won't affect...

@Amanieu oh, sorry for not reading carefully enough

@stephenrkell [wrote](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101913#issuecomment-1280918944): > The only reliable way I know to solve the main problem is to use /proc/self/maps or the equivalent (e.g. FreeBSD has a sysctl KERN_PROC_VMMAP). This would sidestep...

I think this is by design; someone reading the match arm `fooBAR => ...` is likely to interpret `fooBAR` as a binding, not a constant that is being matched against...

I think I can agree that there is an "if-and-only-if" relationship here: if (and only if) we warn about `fooBAR => ...` when `fooBAR` is a `const`-item, then we should...

[discussed in T-compiler meeting today](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202022-10-27/near/306458353) beta backport approved, with expectation that it will be part of Rust 1.65 that goes out in one week. @rustbot label: beta-accepted