dyslexicsteak

> Thanks for the RFC! I see that a key point here is that C FFI is suggested to use `SyncUnsafeCell` instead of `static mut`. It might be helpful to...

> Given the RFC proposes edition-gating the warning, as long as `SUC` (or whatever other API is proposed) is stabilized by the first release of the 2024 edition there should...

> It seems to me that deprecation is relatively uncontroversial but removal may not be. The only thing this RFC has to say about it is: > > > Deprecation...

> I think their final paragraph says exactly the case: > > > This covers the case where someone has perfectly sound and working `static mut` code, doesn't want to...

> I would prefer to simply deprecate it across all editions and leave possible 2027 removal as something to be decided on the next edition. This fits with our general...

> We discussed this in the T-lang triage meeting today. Our consensus was in favor of what @nikomatsakis described [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3560#issuecomment-1919437187). We would like to see the proposal modified to specify...

> Reading the discussion around this RFC, I've been wondering: why can't the already-implemented [rust-lang/rust#117556](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117556) (deprecating `&STATIC_MUT` and `&mut STATIC_MUT` for removal), or an expansion, be considered as an alternative...

> > I went ahead and removed the "remove" part. Feel free to edit further if we can be more clear. > > You still need to clean the body...

I'll try to get it fixed, thanks

After talking about this off-platform with the maintainer and some contributors, I want to let you know that fixing this issue is technically breaking. Therefore, depending on the project's direction,...