►
From YouTube: Traits WG Roadmap Meeting (2019-02-25)
Description
A planning meeting where we map out and try to organize all the priorities, in an effort to map out next steps.
A
A
Things
we
sort
of
a
rough
triage
at
the
ideal
level
of
what
we
think
we
want
to
focus
on
and
there's
probably
I
think
we
might
see
some
grouping
or
rice
and
then
look
a
little
more
detail
at
some
of
the
individual
items
like
I
I
guess
one
thing
that's
worth
even
before
we
even
start
like
when
I
say
defining,
who
we
is,
is
a
little
unclear
to
me
so
I
think
there
there
might
be
a
couple
of
groups
of
people
there's.
Obviously
some,
let's
see
who
is?
A
We
there's
obviously
like
compiler,
laying
split
which
is
sort
of
light,
semi
artificial,
but
there's
what
I
mean
by
who,
as
we
as
I,
could
imagine
the
trades
group
breaking
into
some
kind
of
smaller
groups
that
are
more
focused
on
individual
tasks.
A
little
bit
and
I.
Don't
quite
know
what
those
groups
should
be,
but
I
think
that
will
be
a
possibly
a
useful
thing
to
do.
A
So
I
think
what
I
would
probably
prefer
that
said
is
well.
One
of
the
questions
we
should
think
about
is
like
what
kind
of
laying
design
questions
do
we
think
we
should
prioritize
now,
like
we'll
see
at
least
a
few
categories
like
specialization,
has
kind
of
interesting
questions
around
the
choc
chocolate
vacation
and
then
some
around
the
like
extensions
to
intersection,
dimples
or
whatever,
and
that's
kind
of
a
nitty
gritty
thing
and
then
there's
stuff
like
cinta.
You
know
where
there's
literally
syntax.
A
A
What
the
other
thing
I
was
telling
Sanjay
is
that
I've
decided
to
give
in
and
just
adopt
Dropbox
paper
as
my
tool
of
choice,
meaning
in
addition
that
maybe
we'll
try
to
get
people
into
the
like
rust
group
for
like
rust
drop
box
team
so
that
we
can
actually
assign
people
things
and
use
that
it's
kind
of
a
nice
just
sort
of
like
for
the
team
planning
level
up.
There
will
be
a
github
issues
where
appropriate,
but
I
don't
want
to
go
like
create
a
whole
bunch
of
github
issues
for
like
prospective
work.
A
We
plan
to
do
or
stuff
like
make
a
plan
so
okay.
So
all
that
said
part
of
why
I'm
saying
that
is
I
find
this
document
already
sort
of
unmanageably,
big
and
I'm
thinking.
I
made
a
oh
I,
didn't
I
made
a
folder,
but
I
didn't
move
it
in
there.
Yet
let
me
do
that
now:
oh
I
didn't
even
make
a
folder.
Let's
do
that.
I
was
thinking
of
breaking
some
of
it
into
separate
documents
like
four
different
ideas,
but
possibly
not
life
at
this
moment.
A
So
there's
like
this
list
of
stuff
right-
and
some
of
it
is
reflected
up
here,
and
some
of
it
is
not
so
maybe
the
thing
to
do-
let's
first
just
go
through
them
and
look
for
like
short-term
ones,
I
guess
so
associated
traits
and
quantification
over
traits.
What
even
is
this?
This
is:
okay,
we're
not!
This
is
like
far
future.
It
seems
pretty
clear.
B
B
A
A
Okay,
centrally
you're
hearing,
hey
we're
talking
about
we're,
trying
to
kind
of
go
down
this
list
and
break
down
break
down
what
kind
of
work
we
think
there
is
for
each
of
them,
so
we
can
sort
of
put
them
into
buckets
like
which
ones
are
worth
really
elaborating
in
great
detail
and
I
was
trying
to
push
back
on
the
idea
of
pursuing
associated
traits
and
quantification
over
traits
in
the
short
term.
But
Aaron
was
telling
me
that
you,
you
might
think
that
you
might
be,
might
be
wanting
to
do
that
so
I'm,
very
so
no.
D
A
What
kind
of
work
like
it
seems
to
me
like
there's
a
couple
kinds
of
work
here:
there's
I
wrote
down
in
this
paper
doc
like
describing
the
semantics
basically
I
think
there
would
be
work
just
experimenting,
ignoring
kind
of
this
index
to
a
large
extent
and
saying
here's
how
it
would
look
at
the
logical
level
there's.
Obviously
some
work
sketching
out.
The
syntax.
That
seems
obvious
seems
like
that's
about
it.
I
don't
know.
I'm
exploratory
work
well,.
D
A
D
A
A
A
D
A
D
D
A
D
A
A
D
A
The
goal
of
this
mean
is
to
identify
in
my
mind
anyway-
or
it's
probably
not
gonna
happen
on
this
meeting,
but
my
hope
is
yeah
exactly
that
I
totally
agree,
there's
basically
two
try
to
group
these
things
and
then
figure
out
one
or
two
or
three,
though
we're
going
to
do
the
challenge
might
be
that
if
we're
like
there,
but
it
will
come
a
time.
Probably
when
there's
like
things
that
keep
everybody
busy
requires
some
splitting
and
I
don't
know.
A
C
Turned
into
direct
yeah
I,
just
to
clarify
things
on
my
side:
I,
probably
I'll,
probably
finish
off
associated
type
bounds,
which
is
central
RSA,
because
that
implementation
is
largely
well.
It's
about.
Two-Thirds,
complete
I
also
wanted
to
help
get
the
existential
lifetimes
implementation.
You
know
hidden
in
variant
lifetimes
and
existential
types
over
the
line
and
then
only
after
then
would
I
probably
consider
working
on
the
import,
rain,
banding
stuff,
so
yeah
just
know
my
roadmap
I'm
not
really
planning
to
split
time.
D
C
A
C
A
Didn't
say
anything
it
wasn't,
but
I
would
if
in
case
any
future
ones
show
up
that
I
don't
want
to
be
seen.
Okay,
I,
have
it
set
up
right,
okay,
existential
life,
time,
simple
trade,
so
right
so,
okay,
I
have
these
two
things:
I,
don't
really
know
quite
categorize
them,
so
the
first
one
would
be
I.
Think,
let's
start,
let's
go
back
one
second
trade
object
up
casting,
so
my
sense
is
this
is
something
that.
A
A
A
I
think
it
I
think
the
trade
object
up
casting
in
particular
can
be
grouped
together
with
emporium
bindings
and
existential
lifetimes
and
infiltrate
in
that
they
they
kind
of
fall.
In
the
category
of
like
it's
not
exactly
clear
what
code
we
should
write,
but
it's
not
like
major
language
design
that
is
needed.
It's
more
like
working
through
and
figuring
out,
the
code
they're
different
in
their
difficulty
level,
but
that's
what
we.
C
D
A
A
I
mean
the
way
I
would
see
it
is
if
we
decide
to
do
it.
We're
gonna
pick
a
few
of
these
things
right
and
it's
kind
of
in
an
early
stage.
I,
don't
think,
there's
anyone
who
would
seriously
proposed
that
they
should
not
be
up
castable.
So
it's
really
a
question
of
like
how
to
do
it
and
what
the
ramifications
are
and
so
I
tend
to
agree.
A
Yes,
so,
though,
the
work
would
be
like
spelling
that
exploring
that
and
then
kind
of
writing
up
our
conclusions
and
if
that's
kind
of
moving
in
terms
of
you
think
of
it
like
the
stages,
we're
sort
of
in
the
design
stage
and
implementing
at
some
point
we
yeah.
If
there's
we
could
float,
it
might
be
that
it's
all
very
straightforward,
say
hey
this.
Is
it
or
he
might
be,
that
we
discovered
oh
there's
a
complicating
factor?
We
should
bring
this
to
the
Lange
team
and.
C
A
A
Okay
associated
tight
bounds.
This
is
the
thing
where
you
can
sort
of
have
an
anonymous
yeah
anyway,
the
lights
I'm
gonna
get
back
to
very
soon,
hopefully
so
that
where
does
that
fall
under
I?
Guess,
that's
implementation!
Yep!
Oh
yeah,
Darcy's,
listen
a
little
different
than
these
other
ones
in
that.
Well,
it's
similar
template
Orion
bindings,
but
I,
there's
kind
of
like
it
seems
like
there's
a
little
less
design.
It's
a
little.
More
knows
how
well
the
RC
is.
Maybe
not
I.
Think
I
was
central.
C
C
B
C
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
Or
at
least
until
we've
worked
out
with
it
enough
to
feel
confident,
I
guess
so:
cats
yeah
okay,
so
this
is
good.
We're
getting
close
I
think
we
can
then
refine
these
categories
a
little
bit,
but
I
put
implied
bounds
under
the
specifying
work
because
it's
not
exactly
the
same
as
named
existential
types,
but
it
feels
similar
in
that
I
feel
like
we
kind
of
want
to
it's
mostly
about
making
sure
the
implementation
in
terms
of
what
it
depends
on
choc.
A
But
it's
relatively
straightforward
after
that,
but
it's
mostly
about
making
sure
that
we
know
it's
doing
what
we
want
it
to
be
doing
and
we're
happy
with
that.
Jen
Eric,
associated
types,
I
think
fall
under
this
they're,
mostly
a
matter
of
implementation,
work
specialization!
That's
the
interesting
case
that
kind
of
crosses
a
lot
of
boundaries.
I
guess
I
would
put
it
under
specifying
work
for
the
most
part,
though,.
A
C
A
Maybe
that's
it.
There
might
be
some
amount
of
clean-up
on
chocolate,
stuff,
I,
don't
know
that
counts.
So,
looking
at
these
items,
part
of
why
I'm
trying
to
especially
the
implementation
ones
might
be
something
we
want
to
reshuffle,
but
part
of
what
I
was
trying
to
budget
it
like
this
is
to
sate
it
I.
Imagine
we
might
be
wanting
to
do
like
these
require
different
or
human
resources.
A
And
I
feel
like
we
probably
want
not
to
the
specifying
work
in
particular
I
think
it
feels
like
we
want
people
to
be
doing.
Only
one
of
those
things
at
a
time
is
my
guest,
so
that
we
have
enough,
like
time
and
energy,
to
sit
and
think
about
their
implications.
This
feels
mildly,
more
paralyzed
Abul.
If
we
have
enough
people,
it's
more
a
matter
of
hacking
and
then
that
sound
plausible,
maybe.
A
A
A
So
there
really
is
like
this
was
like
the
the
sort
of
intersection
in
RFC
right.
We
didn't
try
to
like
invent
any
new
notion
of
default.
We're
just
trying
to
apply
the
existing
notion
of
default
to
Associated
types.
Is
that
right,
so
he
beat
that
we
had
I'm
saying
this
RC
if
I'm,
just
remembering
now
that
this
we
had
an
RFC,
it
basically
tried
to
apply
the
existing
notion
of
defaults
to
Associated
types,
but
not
to
invent.
We
had
previously
thought
about.
Oh,
let's
make
some
trees
and
specially
like
improved
specialization.
A
A
A
A
Mean
I
realized
we
don't
have
a
listing
here
for
a
lazy
normalization
at
all
and
I
want
to
that's
something
I
wouldn't
wanted
to,
but
failed
to
do
like
I
started.
I
would
like
to
get
a
better
I.
Think
lazy.
Normalization
is
itself
too
too
broad
of
a
category
like
there's.
Some
very
specific
I'm
gonna
make
a
heading
here
for
now
there's
a
very
specific.
A
There's
like
a
couple,
maybe
a
there's,
a
couple
of
things
we
want
from
it
right.
We
want
some
kind
of
constant
Eric's
interaction
that
doesn't
work
today
and
I.
I
need
to
get
a
good
example
of
this.
What
I
was
trying
to
do?
I
think
I
found
one
but
I
want
to
verify
it
and
then
there's
sort
of
improving
the.
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
C
D
D
So
I
think
we
want
a
syntax
for
quantifying
on
closures
like
for
two
gay
and
then
pipes
body
of
London,
and
you
could
do
that
just
for
four
lifetimes
to
start
with,
and
then
you
could
add
constraints
on
the
life
times
and
then
you
could
introduce
types
and
cosmetics
say
you
can
face
it
if
you
want
to,
but
it
might
get
weird
in
terms
of
motivating
deep
each
little
bit.
Mm-Hmm.
A
D
A
D
A
A
Okay,
so
I
feel
like
we're
at
we're
at
it's
one
o'clock.
We
started
a
touch
late,
but
that's
okay,
I'm
wondering
this
actually
pretty
good
work.
I
feel
like
that.
We
did
here
I'm
wondering
what
the
next
steps
are,
and
one
thing
I
wanted
to
do
as
a
start
is
I
feel
like
this
document
is
huge
and
I
wanted
to
break
these
things
out
into
mm-hmm
sub
documents.
D
We
I
don't
want
to
keep
saying
you
might
have
missed
something,
but
I
think
we
are
pleased.
The
list
is
much
more
useful
if
it's
complete,
so
the
I
see
that
Holley
room
worked
about
constant
bands
that
seemed
well
it
sort
of
comes
to
VG
stuff,
but
it's
also
trade
stuff.
It's
the
interaction
between
coasts
and
trades,
okay,.
A
A
A
A
Maybe
not,
it
definitely
falls
in
this
category
regardless
so
I
guess
the
thing
would
be
I
would
be
curious.
Each
person
who
wants
to
might
want
to
pick
like
what
are
two
things
to
sort
of
nominate
like
I,
feel
like
we
want
to
pick
in
the
end,
some
small
set
of
these
things
to
do
first
and
some
set
to
do
later.
But
to
start,
maybe
we
can
kind
of
nominate
out
good
next
steps,
maybe
not
life,
but
maybe
life.
A
A
A
A
I
feel
like
HRT,
B's
and
closures
are
pretty
immediately
actionable
here
and
very
high
priority
Constable's
and
bounds
to,
to
a
certain
extent
that
that's
also
may
be
more
of
a
cross
collaboration
thing.
Yeah
I
feel
like,
for
example,
as
well.
Although
I
care
a
lot
about
it,
I
would
be
happy
for
it
to
wait
for
a
little
while
it's
waited.
This
long
wait
a
little
longer.
D
C
D
A
Yeah
I
mean
I
would
like
to
specify
generic
closures.
I
think
also
that
it's
fairly
straight,
like
I'm
gonna,
say
straightforward,
but
we
have
we're
starting
to
have
the
vocabulary
to
talk
about
that.
Thanks
to
chalk
and
everything,
and
it
seems
like
we
should
be
able
to
do
it
in
a
precise
issue
kind
of
way,
and
then
we
can
phrase
chair
closures
in
terms
of
that
vocabulary,
and
that's
all
like
we
sort
of
sort
of
confidence
that
we
know
what
we're
talking
about.
So.
D
A
D
D
A
A
A
It's
an
interesting
thing
to
talk
about,
and
maybe
we
want
to,
but
I
feel
like
the
region.
Constrained
stuff
is
pretty
important,
and
maybe
that
is
exactly
the
kind
of
especially
given
the
a
kind
of
intersects
and
is
related
to
some
of
the
workaround
universes
and
stuff
on
named
existential
types,
also
pretty
important.
So
either
of
those
seem
possible
to
me,
like
the
name
next
essential
types.
How
important
are
they
I?
Don't
know
how
important
their
I
was
thinking
that
they
intersect
at
a
single
weight
which
I
guess
they
kind
of
do
well,.
A
A
A
A
A
A
But
we're
so
close
to
like
reaching
a
stopping
point
so
handling
region
constraints,
I.
Think
a
challenge
for
Nico
is
justify.
Why
I
feel
this
is
important.
I
I
think
it's
important,
but
I
want
to
think
more
about
it
and
maybe
it's
more
of
a
as
part
of
chalk.
Work,
I,
don't
know
so
on
the
implementation
side
or
they
see
an
implementation
work.
Category
I
think
unblocking
lazy
norm
pretty
clearly
important
yeah.
D
B
A
C
A
I
mean
right
exactly
that's
the
one
I
think,
there's
probably
also
some
I'm
kind
of
using
this
as
a
shorthand
and
I
probably
should
dig
into
that.
A
little
more
of
there
are
some
lifetime
related
problems
around
async/await
and
I
suspect
there,
there's
like
one
or
two
or
three
and
ice
I'm
using
this
to
some
extent
as
a
shorthand
for
all
of
them,
which
is
sloppy
because
they
might
be
two
different
piece
of
work
that
need
to
be
done.
I'm,
not
exactly
sure.
I
will
figure
that
up,
but
are
they.
A
A
Depends
on
who
you
ask
I
think
there
are
a
borderline,
not
livable.
Yes,
so
example
would
be
like.
You
can't
have
an
async
FN
with
two
with
two
lifetimes
in
its
signature,
Wow,
it's
pretty
pretty
it's
pretty
extreme,
oh
yeah,
and
that
so
yeah
anyway.
I
would
put
the
rest
of
these
things
as
lower
priority.
I
think
they
might
be
worth
taking,
especially
the
implicating
bindings.
A
A
The
question
yeah
I
think
they
can
but
sorry
to
cut
you
off,
but
I
totally
agree
I'm.
Just
a
little
wary
of
like
we
had
to
find
the
right
set
of
mentors,
because
a
lot
of
them
are
people
things
that
I
would
have
mentored
and
I.
Don't
feel
capable
of
like
mentally
juggling.
All
of
these
things,
but
to
the
extent
that,
like
other
people,
are
doing
that
I'm
all
for
it
yeah.
A
D
A
A
Think
yeah
what
we
didn't
do
yet
is
we
identified
like
possible
next
steps,
but
we
didn't
identify
whatever
the
shortlist
of
like
after
that,
what
do
we
do
and
I
think
I
tend
to
agree?
The
multitrader
objects
and
trade
object.
Typecasting
are
light
kind
of
on
that
list
for
me,
because
they're
just
annoying
limitations
with
the
language
today,
amongst
long-standing
annoying
limitations.
Well,
there's
so
much
in
this
list.
That
is,
that
yeah.
D
A
A
D
A
Yeah,
it's
the
little
different
character
than
the
other
forms
of
design.
Here,
it's
a
little
more
lower
level
and
so
on,
but
I
think
there's
enough.
There's
also
some
questions.
That's
actually
to
me
the
easy
part
yeah
we
got
to
find
some
be
tables
or
whatever,
but
like
I'm,
not
sure,
but
I
feel
confident.
We
if
we
start
digging
in
I,
mean
and
for
that
matter,
just
putting
trade
objects
into
chalk
is
already
a
sort
of
bit
of
work.