>> And if you disagree with the unilateral decisions of the rustc developers? "Go fork it or write your own"? Yeah that's what we're doing. I don't interpret t

>> And if you disagree with the unilateral decisions of the rustc developers? "Go fork it or write your own"? Yeah that's what we're doing. I don't interpret that to mean they intend to insert breaking changes (especially since another comment and their FAQ directly contradicted that idea), but rather that they may explore different ways of implementing things, which i think is a great idea. > But the main devs haven't been able to point at issues they have filled about it in Rust upstream Maybe they're busy actually working on something and don't have time to look for specific instances? Or maybe a lot of questions/issues have been documented internally are have not been sufficiently reviewed yet to be opened upstream? There's a lot of room for interpretation here, but i see no reason to assume bad faith on their part. > If you have an argument in favor of gccrs, please go ahead, I am all ears. It's been rehearsed over and over, but if you want to build an actual standard, having many eyes/implementations is a good thing. Feedback from people trying different implementation approaches is crucial to making a specification robust.