scottmcm

The meeting notes mention the possibility of `as_chunks_exact`, which sounds good to me. It could go under https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74985 with the rest of the things there, and has the same "needs...

Hmm, would the `(or …)` approach also let us handle equivalent `icmp`s? Like instead of ```lisp (rule (ult ty x y) (icmp ty (IntCC.UnsignedLessThan) x y)) ``` would we be...

Oops, you're right, I definitely meant the extractor. And yes, that sounds *extremely* handy! For example, right now all the spaceship optimizations look for `(a > b) - (a <...

First, :+1::+1::+1: to the direction of providing `core` methods that explicitly do one predictable thing instead of yolo-`as`. (I'd like to officially [deprecate `as` for things that aren't coercions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/23416#issuecomment-377655080) eventually.)...

> then you can opt-out of both traits with `?MetaSized` FWIW, lang has historically said "no more `?Trait` bounds" like this. That's why there's no `?Move`, no `?Unpin`, no [`?AlignSized...

> it might be worth focusing on `MetaSized` and it's semantics first, and maybe delegating the exact way to define extern types to another RFC? One potential middle ground would...

I was all set to propose merge as "of course" until I saw the note about evaluation :/ I do agree that not evaluating it is consistent with named associated...

On parens: The safe thing to do is start out always requiring them, since then we could look at how the code comes out with them, and remove the requirement...

This makes the exact details of what's being captured -- particularly fields vs full structs -- matter even more than it did before. At least with `Copy`, it was fine...

In general this is looking great, and I'd definitely like this to become something possible. I just have one thing about pointers to discuss. --- I'm having trouble understanding how...