4 ms·
It's important to note that this is an RFC which has been proposed, and there's likely to be a good deal of discussion and revision before it's merged/adopted a
by dikaiosune 10y ago
It's important to note that this is an RFC which has been proposed, and there's likely to be a good deal of discussion and revision before it's merged/adopted as the official 2017 roadmap.
The conversation can be followed/joined/whatever here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1774 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1774
- collinmanderson 10y ago"accordance with RFC 1728" - could they have chosen a naming scheme so their documents are not confused with the _real_ RFC's? Even RRFC 1728 would helpful. Or maybe just #1728?
- tatterdemalion 10y agoLexical scope. You should assume an RFC cited in a Rust RFC is a Rust RFC, you're in the Rust RFC scope. If an IETF RFC is cited in a Rust RFC, it won't be ambiguous.
- Can_Not 10y agoWhy do "the _real_ RFC's" have exclusive rights to that term?