scottmcm
scottmcm
> * a `match` can be labeled: `'label: match x { ... }` I [continue](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/if-block-labels/21573/2?u=scottmcm) to think that adding labels in more places with special behaviour like this is overall...
One thing that seems like an alternative would be @Jules-Bertholet's proposal for `#[align]` on fields. Would that be enough to do this?
Re-nominating to bring this up again. TBH I think I'd like the blanket "we're just not accepting new T-lang issues for potential features", even thought there are features we agree...
To give my two cents on those things, One, I'm fine with issues that are about the state of the repo. For example, "hey this RFC isn't getting included in...
> I'd prefer `array_chunks` to produce an inexhaustible iterator of empty chunks. I'd suggest *not* doing that, actually, because while it's implementable, it means that it'd be no longer be...
Can I put `if let` in a guard pattern? What about let-chains?
Unsure: is this really lang, @joshtriplett? It's an impl that could be done in a stable proc macro crate, AFAICT, which to me says that it's entirely libs-api (even if...
(quoting @BurntSushi [above](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3809#issuecomment-3012866233)) > I find I am mostly convinced by https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3809#issuecomment-2963675737. TBH, while I don't disagree with what I wrote earlier, the arguments about which *direction* of from is...
I guess looking at https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3809#issuecomment-2964595525 all of libs-api has checked their boxes, so I'll just abstain to allow their decision to land, and if they end up concerning anything because...
Nominated for libs-api, because for things that are hypothetically macros written in core I'd mostly lean on them. Personally this makes sense to me.