On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Nick Cameron li...@ncameron.org wrote:
Yes, this is the right place for meta-discussion.
I'll make sure to be stricter about commenting on the PRs in the future.
The aim of this email is only to summarise the discussion so far, it
shouldn't add new opinions
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Nick Cameron li...@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.
Yes, this is the right place for meta-discussion.
I'll make sure to be stricter about commenting on the PRs in the future.
The aim of this email is only to summarise the discussion so far, it
shouldn't add new opinions or comments beyond applying our 'rules' for
accepting PRs in the most
Hi, here are the recommendations for discussion at next weeks meetings.
There is a new section of RFCs which are ready for discussion but
discussion has been postponed because we're waiting on a key person for
that RFC to be present. This is mostly for RFCs which have been brought up
for
