►
From YouTube: 2021-03-03 RFC 2229
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
B
B
B
I
I
want
to
make
sure
before
I
go
create
a
bug
I
was
gonna.
I
was
going
more
for
let's
look
at
what
is
that
called
it's
playground
once
I
figure
out
how
to
share
my
screen.
Give
me
a
second
oh
share
screen.
Please
I
request
permissions.
Please.
B
B
And
then
we
have,
we
have
this,
let's
say
fn
test
that
takes
a
string
and,
let's
just
add
a
struct
which
is.
B
Second
and
we
do
drop
food
atlases
food,
I
thought
this
would
force
food
to
be
moved
into
the
closure,
but
not
the
statement
itself.
Just
because
of
the
drop
would
force
food
to
be
moved
into
the
closure
and
but
not
really
dropped.
B
And,
let's
just
also
just
call
it
so
wait,
it
doesn't
capture
anything
that
is.
Oh,
I'm
unstable,
I'm
one
stable!
That's
you.
B
Yes,
so
this
captures
by
an
immutable
borrow,
I
thought
this
would
force
f
to
get
moved,
which
was,
I
guess,
incorrect.
I
I
thought
it
was
forcing
somehow
just
because
our
drop
of
a
reference
might
work.
It
might
force
this
to
get
moved
and
I
guess
that
was
wrong,
so
the
problem
will
come.
If
I
have
something
like
this
now
we
need
food
to
get
dropped
because
it's
a
well.
It
implements
the
structures
for
string.
So
we
need
that.
That
statement
is
actually
do
you
want.
Let.
D
C
B
Would
still
be
never
mind
it,
it
is
previously
still
also
immutable
borrow,
never
mind.
I.
I
always
confuse
that
one.
Okay,.
C
B
Okay
yeah,
so
another
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
to
you
about
was
the
wrapper
wrapper
pack,
so
give
me
one
thing:
I'll
copy
the
exam.
I
shared
a
link
yesterday,
I
think,
or
day
before,
let's
open
that,
so
I
would
have
expected
this
to
fire
a
warning
at
the
very
least
saying
I'm
taking
a
reference
into
something
like
when
the
closure
is
constructed.
B
B
B
Okay,
I
see
that
makes
sense
all
right.
My
second
question
was:
if
I
now
do
this,
which
is
like
annoying
but.
C
Like
that's
a
extra
condition
we
have
to
check
for,
I
didn't
realize
we
were
that
smart,
but
okay,
again,
which
condition
that
the
field
has
a
type
whose
alignment
is
not
one
or
who's.
Yeah
is
not
one.
B
A
Yeah,
I
think
we
bother.
C
C
C
I'm
saying
that
you
could,
if
you
wanted,
if
this
is
the
code,
you
want
to
write
and
it
doesn't
compile
so
okay,
let
me
back
up
what
I
don't
like
about
this
code
is
that
small
modifications
will
make
it
stop
compiling
like
adding
a
use
to
foo.y
or
or
a
use
of
foo.
Maybe
food.y
will
actually
work,
but.
C
If
you
take
it
out
of
the
closure,
it
won't
compile
right.
Yes,
so
it
sort
of
relies
on
this
detail
of
the
closure
of
the
sugaring,
and
so
what
I
was
saying
is,
I
think,
that's
surprising,
I'd
kind
of
rather
it
didn't
compile,
but
what
I
would
expect
if
you
wanted
to
write
this
kind.
If,
if
you
wanted
this
code
to
execute-
and
you
wanted
it
to
compile
correctly,
you
could
write
before
the
closure
is
created.
Let
temp
equals
foo
dot
x.
B
C
C
B
Yeah,
it
will
err
if
we
truncate
on
all
the
accesses
yeah.
B
C
Okay,
actually.
B
She,
I
think,
made
some
changes.
I
am
not
sure
about
all
of
them.
B
Yes,
yeah,
we
yeah,
I
think
I
think
she
is
probably
all
like.
We
have
a
couple
deliverers
here
tonight,
so
I
think
she's
probably
busy
with
that.
Yes,
once
I
want
to
go
document
the
and
the
size
is,
alignment
does
not
won
in
our
product
board.
Yeah
on
our
issue.
Sorry
one
second.
B
B
B
Yeah,
so
it's
been
a
little
slow
moving.
I
think
through
has
sort
of
started
on
significant
drops
or
insignificant
drops.
C
C
C
A
C
C
C
B
Sorry
excuse
me
that
print
out
the
mirror
and
we
make
sure
that
the
fake
leaves
are
added
accordingly,
and
if
so,
is
there
an
example?
I
feel
like
I've
seen
something
similar,
but
I
couldn't
find
anything
outside
of
mirror
optimization.
A
B
B
C
Removed,
yes,
I
was
trying
to
figure
out.
You
saw
my
comment
about
whether
the
fake
weeds
were
being
added
at
the
right
place.
C
C
We
add
fake
reads
for
everything
that
gets
matched
right.
Yes,
whether
or
not
we
also
capture
it
in
some
other
way,.
C
C
C
C
Sorry,
what
were
you
saying.
C
I
think
that
I
think
that
what
we
said
was
that
we
would
always
add
a
fake
need.
I
think
I
initially
proposed
that
we
should
add
fake
reads
only
if
it's
not
used
some
other
way
and
then
I
thought
we
don't
need
to
do
that
and
we
can
just
always
introduce
fake
weeds
for
anything
that
gets
hatched
yes
and
and
if
you're
asking
does
match,
always
introduce
a
fakery.
The
answer
is
yes,
yeah,
so
I
think
I
still
think
that's
all
true.
B
C
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
B
So
this
is
a
test
double
struct.
This
is
basically
so
it
calls
into
this
method,
which
is
which
takes
a
mute,
ammu
itself.
A
B
C
Yeah,
but
that's
not
quite
right,
because
you
need
to
match
on
the
thing
that
is
also
being
mute
borrowed.
Do
you
have
a
build
of
this
by
any
chance?
I
do
not
have
a
local
building
now,
okay,
I
could
start
a
build.
Where
can
I
I'll
send
it
on
zulu?
This
is,
I
think,
a
test
that
would
work
all
right.
C
Okay
example
test
that,
I
think
will
fail,
as
is,
I
think,
if
you
did
something
like.
A
B
C
That
that
reasoning
is
incorrect,
yeah,
but
that
that's
not.
First
of
all,
I
don't
know
who
that
is,
I
don't
think
they're
on
the
libs
team,
but
secondly,
that's
really
a
question
of
what
the
macro
expands
to
yes,
which
I
don't
really
care
about.
What
I
do
care
about
is
I
mean
as
long
as
it
works.
C
Like
how
users
think
about
it,
and
I
feel
like
users,
I
guess
I
will
say
I
agree
that
that
is
a
better
de-sugaring
or
I
agree
that
if
that's
not
what
I
meant,
I
don't
think
it
matters
which
one
is
the
de-sugaring,
but
I
think
that's
a
better
if
I
were
a
user
I'd.
Rather
I
find
that
less
confusing
than
yes
exactly.
I
still
think
I
would
find
it
quite
heavy.
B
C
Thus
you
couldn't
use
captures
x
in
some
weird
place
like
if
you
expand
to
drop,
you
can
write
things
like,
let
z
equals
captures
x
and
z
will
become
unit
or
whatever
yeah.
That's
dumb
as
it
is.
The
captures
macro
still
allows
you
to
put
it
in
all
kinds
of
places
that
you,
you
can
still
put
it
anywhere.
C
A
statement
goes
which
we
might
rather
that
you
can't,
but
I
don't
think
it's
worth
worrying
about,
but
okay,
okay,
anyway,
this
is
good
that
you
bring
us
up
because,
on
my
mind,
was
that
we
need
to
do
a
write-up.
We
need
to
like
make
a
real
proposal
here.
C
Want
to
make
I
mean
I
want
like
a
discussion
with
lipstein
yeah.
I
want
to
write
up
like
not
rfc,
because
it's
not
that
big
of
a
thing,
but
a
mini
rfc
about
adding
this
macro
and
that
sort
of
explains
the
context.
You
know
why
it
needs
to
be
there
and
then
that
way
and
then
have
the
libs
team
do
a
like
serve
discussions.
C
It
doesn't
have
to
be
too
big.
I
think
you
know.
C
B
I
I
think
yeah
I
can
pick
up
the
reason
from
does
lip
steam,
I'm
assuming
they
care
about
what
this
gets
d
sugar
to
at
the
end,
because
it
is
ending
in
standard
lab.
C
I
would
certainly
include
the
de-sugaring,
and
I
think
I
would
probably
adopt
this-
let
one
I
think,
that's
better
for
the
reason.
Yes,
yeah.
That's
an
example
of
the
kind
of
thing
I
would
like
to
include
in
the
write-up
is
we
chose
this
desugaring
because
it
doesn't
allow
you
to
do
this
or
that,
but
note
that
you
can
still
captures
and
I'll
leave.
I
guess
I
would
also
if
you,
if
you
want
to
write
up
just
start
a
hackmd
and
write
some
thoughts.
I
can
add
a
few
things
later.
Yeah.
C
B
C
Yeah
go
ahead,
there's
I
I
like
and
don't
it
might
actually
be
a
better
choice,
but
I
also
don't
like
it,
but
the
reason
it
might
be
a
better
choice
is
if
we
think
in
the
future,
there's
a
lot
of
stuff.
You
could
do
with
that
macro.
C
A
B
I'll
I'll
I'll
create
a
hackam,
they
add
the
points
we
have
right
now
and
I'll.
So
I
think
this
is
similar
to
the
discussion.
We
had
a
while
back
right
where
we
want
a
capture
clause,
and
I'm
assuming
this
is
the
the
macro
is
basically
a
hack
around
adding
a
capture
clause
to
the
language
directly
or
am
I
a
misunderstanding.
C
B
It
also
comes
down.
I
mean
there,
of
course,
going
to
be
some
users
who
will
wonder
what's
happening
inside
that
thing,
but
my
like,
I
think
one
thing
we
do
want
to
make
clear
with
the
macro
is
that
it
doesn't
return
the
variable
back,
so
so
that
people
don't
try
to
let
x
equals
capture
x
and
stuff,
like
that.
C
B
Okay,
I'll
just
leave
a
message
for
this
user,
which
is
like
drop.
X1
drop.
The
variable
immediately.
B
C
C
Oh,
I
should
have
rc's
and
you
want
to
take
a
clone
of
the
rc
and
not,
and
if
you
had
a
macro
that
wrapped
the
closure,
then
it
could
expand
to
like
a
block
that
does
let
x
equals
x,
dot
clone
that
y
equals
y
dot,
colon
and
then
the
closure,
and
so
it
could
actually
handle
a
bunch
of
cases
that
are
more
interesting.
B
C
But
on
the
other
hand
it
looks,
I
don't
know
it's
going
to
be
more
messy.
B
B
Maybe
I
have
never
implemented
one,
so
I'm
not
sure,
let's
just
try
this.
If
I
were
to
call
this
an
async
block
and
I'll
just
call
that
a
weight
here.
B
B
B
B
C
B
Hold
on
one
second
I'll:
just
do
it
like
it's
hours,
hours
and
I'll
just
be
near.
I
guess.
A
A
B
C
B
I
I
guess
I've
suggested
this
a
couple
times
already,
but
yeah.
I
think
the
attributes
will
come
down
to
sim
similar
to,
I
guess
the
c,
plus
or
style
of
just
like
listing
having
a
set
of
things
at
the
start
sure
but
like
like
in
a
nice
way.
C
B
Yeah,
and
are
we
allowing
something
like
where
x,
y
and
z
are
our
expressions,
so
I
can
say
x
equals
x,
dot,
clone
y
equals
y
or
clone,
or
is
that
going
or
is
that
a
possible
extension
that
we
might
go
for.
C
I
would
probably
do
that
as
a
future
extension.
Okay,
I
would
definitely
want
to
allow
that
I
just
don't
know
I'd
rather
like
design
it
in
peace,
okay
and
only
yeah
single
letters
for
now
single
identifiers.
B
C
C
Yes,
it
might
not
actually
work
the
way
I
want
it
to
which
would
be
annoying,
but
it
would
be
easier
assuming
it
does
work.
It
seems
like
it's
actually
much
easier
to
do
this.
C
C
C
C
B
C
That's
actually
good
for
us,
because
that
makes
rust
fix
easier
right.
Yes,
you
just
got
to
stick
it
there
and
now
now
this
is
much
easier
than
the
old
rust
fix.
We
don't
have
to
add
braces
right.
Yes,.
B
Like
this,
do
we
need
anything
from
the
land
team
on
this,
because
we,
I
know
the
land
team
decided
on
the
capture
well,.
C
C
Yeah,
it's
kind
of
this
is
one
of
those
things
that's
like
at
the
intersection
of
laying
in
libs,
but
it's
going
to
take
a
little
bit
of
to
make
this
work
is
going
to
be
a
little
funky,
because
those
kind
of
attributes
are
not
stable,
so
we'll
have
to
like
stabilize
them
on
closures,
specifically
or
at
least
stabilize
this
one
on
closures.
I
don't
know
I
can
live
with
that,
but
I
have
to
write
okay.
C
I
would
like
don't
we
have
support,
I
think,
for
the
time
being,
we
should
prototype
the
let
underscore
equals
solution.
Okay,.
B
Code,
didn't
you
the
letter,
it
I
mean,
that's
just
like
it
doesn't.
Do
the
rust
fix
part
anyway,
so.
D
B
C
C
B
B
C
B
C
B
Is
also
possible
yeah
and
do
they
only
happen
on
enums?
I'm
trying
to
remember,
because
I
I'm
trying
to
remember
what
was
the
bug
that
triggered
the
downcast
thing
funny
part
is.
I
wrote
the
like
when
I
initially
did
the
mirror
like
conversion,
I
handle
bottle,
check
doncast
the
way
we
do
it
now
and
I
was
like
oh
it's.
I
can
make
the
core
cleaner
because
it's
not
needed
hold
on
one
second
yeah.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
find
the
code
that
triggered
the
downcast
for
roxanne
one
second.
B
Give
me
a
minute,
I
don't
know
if
this
was
just
enums
I'll,
ask
her
and
I'll
it
I'll
I'll
I'll
bring
her
on
zulu
and
then
I
guess
she
can
let
her
spawn
there.
It's
gonna
otherwise
have
to
scroll
through
the
whole
bunch
of
chat,
all
right
balance
on
here,
all
right
and
I'll
say.
B
B
Are
wait,
structs
won't
be
affected
right,
structs
are
just
not,
they
only
have
zero
variant.
Actually,
no,
no,
I
what
we
saw
was
greater
than
zero.
So
our.
C
B
That
is
possible,
like
that,
is
the
chord.
Oh,
I
shared
the
code.
Why
was
I
looking
for
it?
Okay?
Yes,
that
is
the
yes.
That
is
what
we
tested
it
on.
I
think
okay
can.
Actually
we
can
just
try
it
on
playground
right,
because
I
can
use
a
struct
and
I
can
dump
mirror
on
playground
if
I'm
not
wrong.
B
Yes,
well,
I
need
to
probably
turn
this
into
a
struct
anyway,.
B
All
right
that
thing.
B
C
Called
work
kona
like
okay,
rkona
and
it
lets
you
it's
a
plug-in.
I
have
it
on
firefox,
but
I
think
they
have
it
for
chrome
too.
I
assume
maybe
nuts,
not
too
good,
and
it
does
it
gives
you
workspaces
that
you
can
switch
between.
Oh.
C
C
B
B
That's
that's
pretty
nice,
okay,
so
this
is
our
yeah.
It
says
as
point.
B
Okay,
now,
if
I
go
back
to
this
one-
and
I
look
at
it
within
the
closure-
wait,
why
did
it
not
generate
the
oh
yeah?
That's
a
closure
yeah.
It
does
not
do.
C
B
C
B
I'll
I'll
I'll
just
do
a
message
here.
B
Yeah,
it
doesn't
dump
in
the
mirror,
and
it
seems
like
only.
B
It
does
not
like
the
pr
can
safely
handle
it,
so
it's
in
a
without
relying
on
the
assumptions.
I
think
fine.