Matthias Einwag

As discussed in the linked topic, the `Sync` requirement is mainly a Hyper issue - which will certainly be fixed at one point in time. In general `Future`s don't need...

I think you can wrap the `Stream` with one that provides synchronization through a Mutex. That's ugly - but since the `Mutex` is non-contended it won't hurt the performance too...

Sorry for no response on this for a long time. Yes - I think this should happen. But it should probably take a new major version to release this, and...

I was a little bit scared that exposing it would have a side effect when reviewing #38 . I then decided it wasn't critical since usages like `Channel` [require the...

I thought about this a bit more before pushing 0.4. It seems like there doesn't exist any thread-safety issues, since `lock-api` still requires `RawMutex` to be `Sync` for that. See...

Hi. Sorrry for the late response first of all. I'm aware about the drawbacks of dynamic dispatch here. But static dispatch also has it's issues of having to thread a...

I think this was mostly addressed by #36 . If someone has a better idea for that (ideally including data/tests), we can iterate further on it.

Interesting gotcha! Haven't thought about it myself, since I didn't use the Oneshots so far. > In general, I'm not sure why the OneshotReceiver can't implement Future directly This could...

I can't really tell you what the message you are referering means. Regarding unwind safety: The library assumes all of it's internals will never `panic!`. Therfore special unwind handling is...

I'm afraid I can't really answer the question right now, since I'm not comfortable enough with the meaning of `UnwindSafe` and ` RefUnwindSafe`, and what they cover. I would rather...