Closed yoshuawuyts closed 10 months ago
Discussed this in the sync meeting today. It sounds like we prefer to merge this and update the checked in version as needed, rather than keeping a PR open for a longer time.
So with that: merging!
I assume that opening issues for potential feedback on this would be okay? I have a few comments on what I read but don't think that simply editing the RFC and submitting a PR would be appropriate.
@clarfonthey certainly - please feel free to open issues with any questions or feedback you might want to share.
In general my only ask is that we keep things constructive. But given how you're navigating things here I'm not particularly worried about that.
This is a first draft of an RFC covering effect-generic trait definitions. It's pretty rough, so more work on this is definitely needed. In particular this draft punts any potential syntax questions. The future possibilities section also still needs to be written, but I think it's okay to pass on for now.
My ideas was to end up with three-ish RFCs for effect generics; one per stage. This first RFC covers effect-generic trait definitions. The second RFC would cover effect-generic impls and bounds (which is relevant to
const
). And the third RFC would cover effect sets, opening up the path to potentially reasoning about const-by-default, etc.Anyway, first draft of a first draft RFC. Let's talk about this some tomorrow during our sync. Thanks!
Rendered 📖