[rust-dev] Next week's older RFCs
glaebhoerl at gmail.com
Sun Jul 13 07:29:00 PDT 2014
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Nick Cameron <lists at ncameron.org> wrote:
> https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/157 - Use `for` to introduce
> universal quantification - glaebhoerl
> Use `for` rather than `<...>` syntax for type-parametric items.
> Not much feedback, some discussion.
> Recommend close - we're not up for changing the syntax of Rust in such
> a fundamental way at this stage and want to keep with the
> curly-brace-language heritage.
(Thank you for sending these e-mails. I've responded to the substantive
aspects of this at the PR, as requested, but for the "meta" aspects
pertaining to process, I hope that replying to the e-mail is acceptable.)
If I may file a small protest: It feels wrong to me that the first time I
hear of this concern is in a recommendation to the meeting group to close
the PR because of it. (Which is not to mention that it's based on a basic
misunderstanding of the proposal.) Would it be possible to always raise a
particular concern in the comments on a PR before using it as justification
to close, or recommend closing, that PR?
(In general, I think it would be beneficial if the people who get to decide
the fate of PRs took a more active role in discussing and shaping them,
instead of staying aloof before handing down an opinion at some point.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rust-dev