Tyler Mandry

A downside of this approach is that Send/Sync-ness has to be decided on the trait. This is especially difficult for standard traits like `AsyncIterator`, and we don't want to have...

Thanks for the ping and for the PR, I agree it looks good!

I'd still consider it a possibility that `Stream::next` is added prior to stabilization, or even after (since it's a provided method). This might create weird situations with re-exporting if the...

I also have concerns around the naming of `poll!`: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81050#issuecomment-771279864

I'd like to hash out the compatibility issues some here. Starting with adding `Stream::next`, which we considered adding as a provided method to the trait. Let me know if I'm...

If we knew what runtimes the C++ linker linked, could we invert this pattern and pass those as explicit linker args to rustc? We do this in the [Fuchsia GN...

@rustbot second

From a quick look this is in line with the original RFC, and if @joshtriplett is willing to consider it a "friendly amendment" I think it can be merged.

As I [explained](https://hackmd.io/PohGwog9SLK-XCg0ZWTpuQ?view#--use-before-impl) in the lang team meeting, I prefer `use impl Trait` over `impl use Trait`. My points did not produce consensus in favor of changing the syntax: of...

Update: Still need to write out how this doesn't block async fn in trait. Main concerns are around cancel-safety and `poll_next` vs `next`, but these shouldn't interact with AFIT. We...