►
From YouTube: 2020.03.05 Lang Team Triage Meeting
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
There's
been
a
little
bit
of
subsequent
discussion.
Josh
did
you,
oh
you
did,
or
at
least
as
being
subsequent
discussion.
Okay,
hey
Mark.
So
four
quick
note
on
schedule:
I'll
post
something,
but
for
the
upcoming
design
meetings.
I
think
the
main
one.
We
had
some
confusion
about
the
FFI
online
design
meeting
and
when
might
happen,
but
current
plan
is
for
it
to
happen.
March,
16th
and
I'm
not
sure
about
the
next
two
days,
but
I'll
post,
something
on
the
inside
rust
blog
people
have
opinions.
I
was
thinking,
sealed
rust
and
either
nothing
or
maybe.
A
Lengthy
procedures
or
unsafe
code
guidelines,
whose
the
idea
would
be
to
talk
about
how
can
we,
what
are
some
next
steps
we
can
take
around
on
safe
core
guidelines
and
concrete
next
steps?
I,
don't
know
you
can
discuss
that
afterwards,
but
the
main
one
is
that
I
wanted
to
highlight.
Is
this
March
16th?
Is
people
care
about
F,
F,
online
shepherded
item
updates,
inline
assembly,
Josh
or
Amin?
You
do
you
want
to
carry
it
I.
C
C
A
C
B
Bit,
yes,
Ryan
mentioned
a
desire
to
produce
a
new
simplified
version
of
the
proposal,
maybe
trying
to
do
a
little
bit
less
and
figuring
out.
What's
the
smallest
set
of
things,
we
could
ask
the
language
to
do.
We've
been
talking
about
like,
what's
the
simplest
possible
way
to
get
the
language
to
provide
a
built
in
trait.
That
would
say
this
thing
completely
occupies
it
said
a
bit.
B
The
Ralpha
added
a
mechanism
to
the
compiler
where
it
internally
knows
these
types
allow
zero,
and
these
types
allow
any
bit
pattern,
and
if
we
can
expose
that
as
a
trait,
that
would
be
enough
by
itself
that
the
rest
could
be
done
in
a
library,
cradle,
ecially
and
prototype
that
way,
and
then
perhaps
brought
into
the
language
later.
So
we're
trying
to
regroup
and
put
together
a
minimal
proposal
and
we're
hoping
to
bring
minimal
proposal
back
to
the
language
need
one.
A
Thing
that
that
sounds
good
one
thing
I
did
jumps
to
mind
is
I.
Think
the
idea
is
that
were
a
bit
mm0,
it
is
conservative,
whatever
tests
were
doing
is
basically
it's
deciding
whether
to
panic
right
it's
going
to
panic
if
zeros
are
definitely
not
allowed,
but
there's
probably
some
gray
area.
I,
don't
know
I'm
basically
wondering.
Is
it
a
precise
test
or
is
it
conservative
and
if
it's
conservative,
is
it
conservative
in
the
right
way.
A
A
A
D
B
E
D
A
A
A
F
G
A
Implementation
work
proceeding
that's
okay,
FF
I
in
mind.
We
already
mentioned.
We
reschedule
a
meeting
to
March
16th,
there's
a
blog
post
that
has
some
outlines
of
some
of
the
discussions
so
far.
There's
no
updates
around
this
didn't
rate
soundness.
I
haven't
had
any
time
to
think
about
it
at
all.
I
guess
the
only
question
would
be
well
should
I
try
to
find
someone
else
to
pick
it
up,
maybe
for.
C
B
A
Tried
but
the
current
proposals
that
are
it's
not
relevant
to
the
two
proposals
that
we
landed
on
so
I
stopped
trying,
because
what
was
happening
was
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
if
we
added
there
was
some
some
other
proposals
where
we
were
saying.
Maybe
we
can
add
some
shims
that
would
intercept
illegal
unwinding
and
abort
and
I
wasn't
sure
how
big
those
gems
would
be
if
they
aren't
like
they
wouldn't
be
as
big
as
the
full
overhead
of
CEO
panic
equals
unwind,
because
they
don't
have
to
run
destructors
and
so
on.
A
A
Go
there
so
I
don't
have
that
data
because
it
didn't
okay.
A
If
you
change
from
panic,
equals
online
to
panic
people
support.
Is
it
okay
if
in
some
sense
scenarios
that
causes
you
be?
How
much
can
we
check
this
and
should
I
check
this
sort
of
you
know
in
the
sea
world?
If
you
compile
with
that
exceptions,
and
if
no
exceptions
and
you
mix
the
two
you
get
bad
stuff
and
trying
to
do
better
than
that
is
hard
if
you're
in
some
cases,
but.
A
So
there's
a
few
key
high
issues.
We
actually
don't
have
a
lot
on
the
agenda
today,
so
we
could
come
back
to
FFI
in
mind
if
we
wanted
a
little
impromptu,
but
the
is
x86.
So
we
had
last
time
talked
about
this
feature.
Detection
where
we
removed
in
braking
equates
there's
now
a
proposed
stabilization.
A
few
people
haven't
checked
their
box.
A
A
The
one
so
the
unsung
has
pin
stuff
we've
kind
of
already
covered
the
lifetime
balance
and
auto
trade
impulse.
This
is
a
known
limitation
of
our
generator,
it's
kind
of
free,
it's
a
limitation
of
our
general
implementation.
The
effects
amazing
the
way
you'd
be
nice
to
fix
its
kind
of
moods.
It's
too
complex
to
go
over
right
now,.
A
A
It's
used
inside
of
art
to
decrement
one
from
that
release
from
the
real
talent,
which
means
that
somewhere
in
between
doing
the
actual
decrement
and
returning,
we
still
have
a
live
reference
to
memory
that
might
get
freed.
If
some
other
thread
should
decrement
the
rest
count
in
that
interval,
and
this
this
is
technically
you
be
it's
you
be
against
the
unsafe
code
model.
I.
Don't
think
we
really
in
our
discussion
on
this
problem.
A
We
didn't,
we
didn't
really
reckon
with
what
we
would
do
to
try
to
solve
this
and
I
guess
now
that
I
reread
the
problem
like
it's
a
pretty
deep
problem,
I
was
hoping,
maybe
was
hoping
that
we
could
say.
Well,
maybe
the
solution
is
we
should,
for
the
time
being,
we
write
the
code
to
use
raw
references
or
something
we're
all
foreigners
to
just
sidestep
the
problem,
at
least
in
standard
library,
but
I.
Remember
now
that
actually
the
problem
is
this
stable
public,
API
of
atomic
energy.
B
Once
upon
a
time,
we
have
the
issue
with
the
the
function
in
command
that
was
unsafe,
that
ran
code
before
rather
that
was,
he
was
not
quite
sound
because
it
needed
to
be
marked
unsafe
and
wasn't.
There
was
like
a
pre
exact
function
and
we
just
ended
up
deprecating
it
and
then
creating
a
new
function
that
was
unsafe
and
did
the
same
thing
and
recommending
people
use
that
we
could
do
that
here
of
saying
this
is
direct.
Access
is
deprecated
hated
like
this.
You
need
to
use
this
other
function.
The.
A
Other
problem
I
disagree
because
we
don't
support
star
khan's
methods
at
the
moment
which
we
I
should
so
maybe
that
may
be.
The
most
actionable
thing
here
is
to
try
it
like:
let's
try
to
add
Rob
minor
methods,
but
guess
that
things
up
again
the
other
questions
of
our
overall
roaring
strategy,
but
that
would
be
really
useful.
I
know
like
in
Rayong
I
had
to
do
some
bending
over
backwards.
G
A
A
A
Mean
we
can
work
that
out
I
guess
to
find
that
we
have
inherent
methods
on
like
actually
is
that
a
problem
yeah?
We
have
inherent
methods
on
integers
and
things
like
that,
and
am
I
confusing
myself?
No,
that
is
a
problem.
Yeah
we'd
have
to
figure
that
out
give
some
questions.
I,
guess,
I,
don't
know
we're
not
gonna.
Do
it
in
this
meeting.
Probably.
But
it's
interesting.
A
A
D
A
D
F
Actually,
one
other
note
here
is
that
what
we
want
to
take
is
a
really
rough
one
gel.
If
you
want
there's
no
current
type,
that's
like
valid
winter
that
may
get
invalidated
during
this
function.
There's
no
way
they
express
that.
If
you
don't
really
want
to
take
a
rough
winter
sensor,
then
that
function
has
to
be
unsafe.
We
kind
of
don't
want
it
to
be
a
it's
a
good
point
and
that
might
like
something
like
non-null
would
potentially
be
easy
or
take.
A
A
We
could
also
want,
as
we
discussed
in
the
thing
we
can
also
say,
if
it's
in
the
ampersand
reference
to
a
atomic
cell.
Basically,
then
you
can't
do
some
of
these
optimizations
and
then
the
methods
are
fine,
just
as
they
are
just.
E
A
D
A
D
C
A
I
mean
it
doesn't
have
waited.
This
long
can
wait.
Another
week
floating
point
to
inner
jerk-ass
can
cause
undefined
behavior.
So
I
highlighted
this
one
because
I
don't
know
it's
been
here.
A
long
time
seems
like
we're
ready
to
do
something,
but
we
have
kind
of
gotten
stuck
for
a
while.
We've
been
saying.
G
A
F
F
A
G
C
G
A
A
F
A
A
A
I
feel
like
technically,
we
can
change
Lintz
know,
especially
if
they're
allowed
by
default
and
we're
just
like
we're
just
landing
wind
so
that
people
can
opt
into
this
behavior.
But
the
RFC
I
feel,
like
makes
sense
for
saying
we're.
Gonna
change
the
convention
that
we,
yes
we're,
asking
you
to
do,
whether
we
do
it
by
errors
or
Lintz
or,
however,
we
do
it.
It's
go
change.
G
G
I'm
on
the
I'm
all
happy
with
the
changing
the
link
defaults
to
encourage
this
I
am
personally
uncertain
whether
it
is
always
valuable
to
have
the
extra
unsafe
sin
here.
I,
don't
know
how
often
people
are
writing
basically
C
code
and
rust.
We're
just
sticking
an
extra
unsafe
block
in
absolutely
everything
in
a
module
is
more
trouble
than
it's
worth.
I.
A
A
G
A
E
B
I
would
also
suggest
that
if
we
were
going
to
have
an
unusual
keyword
that
was
not
unsafe,
then
we
might
just
as
easily
decide
that
the
thing
that
needs
the
different
keyword
that
people
aren't
used
to
should
be
I
have
an
unsafe
function
whose
entire
body
is
unsafe.
Let
me
write
that
more
briefly,
rather
than
the
case
of
I
have
a
function
that's
unsafe
to
call,
we
might
not
necessarily
decide
we
either.
One
of
those
is
the
one
that
could
decide
to
have
a
new
keyword
for
a
different
meeting.
Oh.
A
G
Something
that
we're
planning
on
doing
for
2018,
it's
but
I
think
so
we
have
Lintz
that
people
can
opt
into
now.
We
will
put
those
as
part
of
the
warning
lens
for
the
addition
change,
but
there
don't
need
to
be
on
by
default,
because
it's
not
a
hard
error
in
the
new
addition.
It'll
just
be
new
things
that
you
fix.
This
part
of
the
addition
fix
lens.
A
Like
if
we
want
to
do
this
right,
we
would
like
to
change
your
code
automatically
for
you,
which
will
be
a
certain
amount
of
work
to
make
good
suggestions
making
it
a
limp
does
give
us
the
get
out
of
jail,
free
card
that
we
can
say.
Since
it's
not
a
hard
error,
your
code
didn't
stop
compiling
in
rust,
2021.
It
just
started
getting
lots
of
annoying
warnings,
but
it
will
be
better
if
we
are
able
to
I
mean
at
minimum.
A
G
A
A
A
Rfc
bot
pending
list
I,
didn't
actually
populate
this,
but
it's
good
to
take
a
look
over
it,
but
there
anything
in
here
that
one
thing
I
will
mention
is,
since
some
people
are
on
the
call
now
I
posted
something
in
this
inline
assembly
project
group,
where
I
wanted.
I
basically
want
people
to
look
over.
What
I
wrote
here
and
in
particular
there's
some
silence
like
central
raise
concerns
and
I
haven't,
heard
them
echoed
by
anyone
and
I,
don't
know
if
people
are
silently
in
agreement
and
if
so,
I'd
prefer.
A
A
May
want
to
look
at
that
and
then
we're
done
with
our
agenda.