Jacob Lifshay
Jacob Lifshay
> That would sadly not work as a fix then I don't see why we can't add `splatted` variants for those functions most likely to have tuples, e.g. `Iterator::map`...we can...
> It seems odd to allow use for constructing tuple like structs, but not for anonymous tuples. yes, I think we should avoid adding more ways that tuples can't be...
> Personally, I see zero _technical_ impediments and am totally in favor of having these as well. > > There's some discussion about _human_ reasons under this comment thread: [#3723...
if you have `unpack` as a soft keyword, what happens with `[unpack * a]` since that already means something?
I think `raw` only works as a soft keyword because it's followed by `const`/`mut` which makes it unambiguous. if we did something like `[do unpack *a]` then that would be...
maybe embrace that they are sets and allow using `"abcd" in feature` instead of `feature = "abcd"`? though then that makes me think we should have named it `features`.
seems to me that `Value` should be an associated type since it's uniquely determined by `Key` and `Self` -- like `Index::Output`
found a semantically important typo: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87285
if they behave like unix where you can `dup2` to replace stdout/stderr's file descriptors (which is what i'd expect), they discard any previous values.
the rendered link is broken