On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Nick Cameron <[email protected]> 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. > Recommend close - we're not up for changing the syntax of Rust in such > a fundamental way at this stage and want to keep with the > curly-brace-language heritage. > (Thank you for sending these e-mails. I've responded to the substantive aspects of this at the PR, as requested, but for the "meta" aspects pertaining to process, I hope that replying to the e-mail is acceptable.) If I may file a small protest: It feels wrong to me that the first time I hear of this concern is in a recommendation to the meeting group to close the PR because of it. (Which is not to mention that it's based on a basic misunderstanding of the proposal.) Would it be possible to always raise a particular concern in the comments on a PR before using it as justification to close, or recommend closing, that PR? (In general, I think it would be beneficial if the people who get to decide the fate of PRs took a more active role in discussing and shaping them, instead of staying aloof before handing down an opinion at some point.)
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
