►
From YouTube: Lang Team Triage 2020-07-20
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
So
I'll
see
this
way,
so,
let's
see
reviewing
any
first
step,
I
get
will
check
for
newly-created
RFC's.
There
are
some,
including
this
interesting
one
by
votes,
I
hadn't,
seen
until
just
now,
I
think
this
fits
pretty
well
into
the
so
this
comes
from
async
foundations.
Although
I
wasn't
aware
both
its
gonna
post,
the
RFC.
A
A
Relating
to
the
stream
trait
so
there's
and
I
guess
now,
there's
also
a
missing
drop
RFC,
but
we've
been
worth
moving
towards
adding
a
straight-a
trait
for
streams
for
asynchronous
streams
and
I
think
there's
a
fair
number
of
linking
interactions
that
come
up
in
this
proposal.
So
I'd
like
to
talk
about
it
in
a
meeting
at
some
point,
I
kind
of
highlighted
a
few
of
them
here.
It
mostly
has
to
do
with
I'll
just
go
through
a
real
fast.
A
One
thing
is
this
generic
problem
that
the
way
I
met
that
dispatch
works
right
now
you
can't
move
methods
from
helper
traits
into
the
standard
library
without
potentially
breaking
people's
fates,
because
if
you
add,
if
you
add
a
new
method
than
you're
getting
ambiguity,
we're
used
to
resolve
and
that's
kind
of
annoying
and
that's
relevant
to
stream,
because
we
wanted
to
add
a
kind
of
definition
of
scream
that
doesn't
have
all
the
helper
functions.
You
might
eventually
want,
because
there
are
reasons
that
they
weren't
ready.
Yet.
A
C
One
other
item
in
which
this
interacts
with
lang
and
I'd
like
to
understand
if
this
is
what
you're
mentioning
what's
mentioned
in
the
third
bullet
here,
is
this
going
to
be
integratable
into
four
loops
along
the
lines
of
like
this
discussion
about
into
stream
instead
of
into
iterator,
so
that
you
don't
have
to
write
while
let
some
equals
in
order
to
build
a
stream
loop
yeah?
So
there
are
two.
A
Writing
streams
today
is
very
difficult
and
the
other
issue-
that's
related,
is
I.
First
of
all,
I
finally
found
a
name.
This
pattern
that
I
like
but
we've
been
discussing.
The
idea
of
my
video
so
I
know
any
videos
to
look
at
we've
been
discussing
the
idea
of
this,
this
version
of
stream,
just
like
iterator
each
item
that
the
screen
produces,
if
ownership
of
it
to
the
person
who's
getting
next
item.
A
So
when
you
call
next,
you
get
ownership
of
the
item
that
you
that
you
requested,
but
there
is
a
use
for
what
was
once
called
streaming.
Iterator
is
now
calling
lending
areas
and
lending
streams,
the
idea
being
that
you
call
next
and
you
get
something
that's
borrowed
from
the
iterator
itself,
we're
from
the
stream
itself,
so
that
that
lets
the
screamer
iterator.
We
used
some
internal
buffer
or
something
like
that
so
attention.
A
So
you
have
to
finish
with
it
before
you
can
call
next
again
because
you're
going
to
reuse
the
same
resources
and
that's
an
expected
thing
we're
going
to
want-
and
there
are
some
coherence
issues
that
will
arise
if
we
add
a
lending
stream
in
the
future.
Similarly,
if
we
add
a
lending
generator,
basically,
you
would
like
to
be
able
to
automatically
convert
every
owning
stream
into
a
lending
stream,
because
it's
sort
of
it's
compatible
in
this
direction.
A
If
I'm
giving
you
ownership
I
can
also
lend
it
to
you
essentially,
but
the
problem
is:
if
you
do
that,
you
run
these
coherence
issues
where
you
can
implement
lending
stream
for
any
type
that
implements
stream
and
you
can
implement
lending
stream
for
any
box
of
a
limit,
another
lending
stream,
let's
say,
but
then
that
creates
two
routes.
A
C
Is
would
it
be
possible
to
reverse
that
you're
saying
like
you,
can
always
get
a
lending
stream
from
a
stream?
Could
we
reverse
that
and
say
that
you
can
get
a
stream
from
a
subset
of
lending
streams
or
in
other
words
a
stream
is
just
a
lending
stream
where
the
lifetime
doesn't
actually
depend
on
the
strainer?
Maybe.
A
A
A
So
this
is
a
one
problem
and
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
solve
this,
because
it's
not
these.
These,
inter
conversion
issues,
are
not
specific
to
this
case,
similar
to
the
method,
compatibility
issues,
but
what
you're
saying
is
different,
somewhat
different
and
I
think
the
answer
is
yes,
you
could
imagine
having
something
like
I.
A
Think
it
would
be
something
like
implement
stream
or
L,
where
L
is
lending
stream.
We
don't
actually
know
what
the
syntax
would
be
for
this
there'd
be
something
like
that,
and
here
what
you're
saying
is
kind
of
if
L
is
a
lending
stream,
whose
item
no
matter
what
lifetime
you
give.
It
is
always
I,
I'm
type
I.
Then
this
can
be
me
listening
and
the.
A
Yes,
that's
what
it's
saying,
because
it
kind
of
can't
buy
construction,
because
due
to
the
way
that
doping
works,
the
type
AI
has
to
be
something
you
could
type
out
here
where
this
lifetime
is
nine
scope,
so
can't
possibly
rather
yeah
right,
okay,
so
yeah
you
could
have
and
then
the
same
issues
will
arise.
So
basically
interconversion
is
going
to
be
a
pain
because
of
coherence,
and
it
would
be
nice
to
solve
that.
A
So
anyway,
that's
I
thought
that'd,
be
a
nice
thing
for
us
to
discuss
and
I.
Don't
have
specific
ideas
beyond
the
answer
of
obvious
ones
for
how
to
solve
those
problems,
but
it
seemed
good
to
go
over
it.
I
still
think
we
should
add
streams
as
they're
useful,
and
these
problems
are
more
general
than
that,
but
it
will
probably
heighten
the
pressure
to
solve.
A
A
C
A
A
C
C
Roughly
speaking,
yeah
I
think
it
would
be
good
if
we
had
a
rough
idea
of
how
many
releases
we
feel
it
needs
to
go
through
before
we're
ready
to
say.
Has
there
been
any
critical
issue
and
like
when
so
I
would
really
love
to
see
this
happen
in
the
2021
edition?
I
think
it's
so
definitely
go
at
least
like
three
or
four
releases
before
we
even
consider
this,
but
people
are
actively
using
it.
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
A
C
About
whether
we
should
bump
the
checking
for
well
for
madness
conditions
on
type
alias
discussion
to
another
week
in
order
to
discuss
the
constant
Eric's
subset,
I
personally,
would
be
all
for
that
I
think
in
terms
of
priorities.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
still
have
the
other
meeting
next
week.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
the
last
thing
is:
we
have
all
these
major
change
proposals,
some
of
which
are
getting
old
and
long
in
the
tooth.
We
had
talked
about
I'm
going
to
approach
this
week,
various
people
to
see
if
there
are
people
who
want
to
serve
as
the
eight
bones,
otherwise
I
think
I'm
going
to
start
sending
warnings
that
will
probably
close
some
of
them.
If
we
don't
find
a
liaison
assuming
nobody
signs
up.
C
Was
about
to
ask,
should
we
have
a
process
for
establishing
people
who
are
willing
to
Lee
A's,
but
who
do
not
currently
have
the
bandwidth?
Because
there
are
you
know
some
of
these
I
might
be
willing
to
be
a
liaison
for,
but
until
the
existing
project
groups
finished
their
way
through
I
feel,
like
I
shouldn't
take
on
another
one.
Yeah.
C
C
That
seems
questionable
the
only
case
that
I
can
think
of
where
that
would
be
relevant
would
be
things
like
I
want
to
know
which
of
these
pointers
is
earlier,
and
that's
just
an
argument
that
you
should
be
able
to
or
Don
pointer,
raw
address
values
and
I.
Think
you
can
do
that
already
so
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
problem
yeah!
You
can.
C
A
There's
an
unstable
function
which
this
relies
on
in
some
way
or
relies
on
lease
on
that
same
capability
oops
and
what
it
does
in
particular
is.
It
gets
the
alignment
given
a
raw
pointer.
It
gets
the
alignment
of
the
value
that
that
pointer
references,
but
if
T
is
sized,
then
the
pointer
can
be
dangling.
Otherwise
it
cannot,
because
you
have
to
read
the
metadata
and
I
guess
that's
something
you
couldn't
implement
without
specialization.
So.
A
Yes,
this
is
actually
good
stuff,
so
someone
has
been
doing
some
interesting
work
here.
I
raise
this
because
this
intersects
possible
addition.
So
this
is
no.
This
is
the
RFC
that
allows
you
to
find
a
good
example.
I
guess
allows
you
to
write
stuff
like
this,
which
will
be
a
shorthand
for
a
reference
for
printing
the
value
of
a
which
today
would
require
this
kind
of
more
explicit
notation
and
the
problem
is.
A
It
turns
out,
there's
this
corner
case
around
panic,
where,
if
you
do
panic,
bang
with
a
value
and
no
matter
what
that
value
is,
it
gets
propagated
up
as
the
value
that
you
panicked
with,
and
that
includes
raw
string
literals
that
already
contain
braces
so
there
it
would
be
if
we
there's
kind
of
a
conflict
here,
and
so
what
is
being
proposed
is
that
we
can
use,
in
addition,
boundary
to
transition
so
that
the
behavior
is
uniform
and
there
are
various
details
or
possible
ways.
We
could
do
that
I
guess.
A
A
I
think
that's
something
that's
possible
now
and
it's
possible
only
with
lips
stirred
I
guess,
because
you
need
to
allocate
a
box,
it's
not
possible
to
live
court,
but
if
it
were
possible,
then
you
would
need
I
wouldn't
want
to
take
away
the
ability
to
like
panic
with
some
value.
That's
not
a
string,
basically
as
the
as
the
thing
that
you're
throwing
so
to
speak.
I.
C
Think
there's
actually
two
issues
at
hand
here.
There
is
the
issue
that
panic
has
the
ability
to
process
an
arbitrary
thing
that
isn't
a
string
and
yeah.
That
I
believe
involves
boxing.
There's
also
that
panic
has
a
special
path
for
literal
strings.
That
is
designed
for
the
case
where
you
can't
or
don't
want
to
allocate
memory
and
don't
want
to
handle
the
full
format.
Machinery
and
the
macro
is
designed
to
say.
Oh
I
have
just
a
literal
string
and
no
arguments
so
I
should
avoid
running
this
through
any
of
the
format
machinery.
C
There
was
a
proposal
this
week
to
add
a
mechanism
to
the
arguments
type
for
an
as
stir
that
would
allow
you
to
ask.
Is
this
a
literal
string
and
can
I
just
treat
it
as
one,
and
it
would
be
an
as
stir
that
returns
option
that
option,
stir
rather
option
static,
stir
and
so
I
believe
that's
being
handled?
And
that
then
raises
the
question
of.
A
C
Write
and
I
think
the
the
point
of
the
discussion
that
I
saw
was
that,
while
it
might
take
an
addition
boundary
to
move
forward,
the
result
would
not
be
losing
any
functionality
compared
to
the
current
system,
so
people
could
always
use
the
new
edition
version
and
would
have
the
ability
to
work
with
a
static
string
and
an
arbitrary
value
and
an
arbitrary
format.
Depending
on
the
situation,
there
shouldn't
be
a
problem.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
that
I
want
to
propose
that,
like
for
the
purposes
of
this
meeting,
we
just
post
something
saying
we
are
in
favor
of
making
this
transition,
we
would
like
to
preserve
the
ability
to
panic
with
arbitrary
values
and
literal
strings
in
the
process.
You
know,
although
it's
okay,
for
it,
to
require
some
specific
syntax
or
like
a
different
fact.
Maybe
I
don't
know
like
what
we
would
like
to
see
a
design
for
that
is
that
song
right.
A
A
C
A
Whereas
for
us
2018,
we
kind
of
really
pushed
hard
to
get
a
bunch
of
stuff
done
by
then
and
I
was
highly
stressful.
We
want
to
try
to
avoid
reproducing
that
dynamic,
but
you
know
maybe
it'll
happen
more
naturally,
because
there
will
be
this
sort
of
sense
of
here's
the
additions
and
we
can
phase
different
kinds
of
work
at
different
points.
To
do
this
a
little
bit
and
we
specifically
said
that
we
would
make
addition
idiom.
A
A
So
idiom
plans
are
like
other
migrations,
in
that
you
ought
to
have
an
either
they
should
have
very
low
impact
or
you
have
an
automatic
pathway
for
them,
because
they're
going
to
become
the
NIE
Beattyville,
and
we
also
said
that
we
don't
want
to
do
fishing
for
reserving
keywords
or
other
syntax
changes
that
you
should
be
doing
that
as
part
of
some
active
project
group
or
you
know
RFC
like.
If
we
have
some
proposal
to
make
generators,
then
we
can
reserve
the
keywords
that
that
proposal
is
looking
at,
but
we're
not
gonna
go
reserved.
A
Keywords
like
a
whole
bunch
of
keywords
that
we
think
we
might
use
which
is
kind
of
what
we
said
in
the
last
division
and.
A
A
To
the
way,
ember
does
their
additions,
which
is
this
fixed,
driven
feature
driven
additions,
at
least
when
things
are
ready,
so
they
basically
introduce
a
bunch
of
they
set
a
high
level
goal.
They
don't
say
when
the
addition
is
gonna
be
released,
so
it's
not
like
they
call
it.
They
give
it
a
name
like
octane
and
then
they,
when
the
work
is
done,
the
addition
is
declared.
A
So
it's
like
a
big
triumphant
event
that
they've
achieved
this
goal,
which
is
really
cool
idea,
but
it's
a
little
bit
different
and,
in
particular,
I
think
it
doesn't
fit
with
smaller
changes.
So
well
so
I
think
things
like
this
panic
is
a
good
example
of
kind
of
smaller
changes
that
if
you
have
a
regularly
paced
addition,
you
can
sort
of
say:
okay,
we're
gonna
make
this
transition
so
that
this
corner
case
you
know
you
can
now
just
reference
variables
without
having
to.
A
You
can't
do
that
if
you're
tying
tying
a
bunch
of
things
to
these
the
addition,
and
so
similarly,
we
want
to
make
it
basically
that
we're
gonna
do
the
addition,
because
we
always
expect
to
have
some
stuff
to
do
and
not
make
it
so
that
we
like
have
to
decide
whether
the
addition
is
worthwhile
based
on
what
changes
are
there
or
not
there?
A
That's
the
proposal,
I'm
open
to
feedback,
if
you
don't
agree
with
certain
aspects
of
it,
but
it
definitely
affects
the
lang
team.
Quite
a
bit
he's
worth
bringing
up
I.
Think
we'll
open
this
as
an
RFC.
Soon
one
thing
I
haven't
added
is
I
was
trying
to
add
things
in
the
appendix
here
as
possible
changes.
A
I
know
we
had
a
list
somewhere,
I
have
to
go,
find
it
and
I
think
one
thing
we
we
also
say
in
here,
and
that
is
that
we
will
should
create
a
sort
of
group
who's
dedicated
to
managing
the
addition,
and
so
I
think
we'll
want
to
think
about
what
is
the
process
for
stuff
like
this
panic
thing
change
whatever?
How
do
they
get?
A
A
A
C
One
policy
question
that
I
would
be
curious
about
about
policy
changes.
You
mentioned
the
change
to
the
idiom
lengths
that
they
would
start
becoming
deny
by
default
in
the
addiction,
so
2021
ATM
LEDs
will
become
deny
in
the
2021
edition.
If
you
opt
in
I'm
wondering
do
we
need
to
have
a
certain
time
lag
there
such
that
we
do
not
introduce
an
idiom
lint.
You
know
the
release
before
a
2021
Edition
comes
out
and
then
immediately
when
that
edition
comes
out.
If
you're
using
that
edition,
it
becomes
a
denied
by
default.
B
A
Say
you'll
be
getting
the
warning
in
the
old
edition
and
ideally
it
would
come
with
a
migration.
So
when
you
make
the
transition
to
the
new
edition,
it'll
be
fixed
for
you.
In
any
case,
although
the
only
caveat
is
that
an
acceptable
migration
might
be
to
just
add
or
warn
like
just
change
the
level
in
your
crates,
for
it,
your
function
about
something
yeah,
so
you
can
have
very
simplistic
migrations,
and
then
you
do
have
to
deal
with
it
yourself.
If
you
care
to
remove
those.
A
Try
turning
off
the
video
and
see
the
elves
making
peers
having
some
issues.
Okay,
it
seems
a
little
better
now.
Hopefully
you
can
hear
me
all
right.
This
ampersand
raw
issue,
I
think
I
nominated
this
yeah,
mostly
because
I
want
to
move
the
R
or
F
macro
for
stabilization.
Is
there
a
reason
not
to
do
that?