RFC: Collections reform
Added drawbacks
A few minor fixes
Added alternative discussion for `for`
Fix bad references to self
RFC: Error conventions, take 3
Clarify FIXMEs
Revision: add some clarifications and naming alternatives
Permit multiple lifetime bounds on parameter types.
Substantially revised Borrow trait, add range proposal
Enforce object-safety when coercing to an object

Restrict which objects can be coerced to trait objects, rather than which methods can be called on a trait object.
Add `Sized?` bound to type params; add alternative using `for Sized?` rather than restricting value to reference types.
first draft.
Added links to previous discussions on this matter amongst the team.

Attempted to make it clear, however, that the prior discussions were
really in a different context, namely when we were trying to resolve
the question "does \xXX denote a code *unit* or a code *point*."

This RFC is proposing a way to side-step that question entirely, at
least in the context of string literals.  (I'll leave aside the
question of if we are really side-stepping it, given our treatment of
byte-string literals.)
be explicit about the limit in the detailed design.
Add racket and python examples.

These admittedly weaken my "source of confusion" argument.
Nonetheless, I still think the case for `\xXX` for `XX > 0x7F` is
weak.
add citation for my claim about "majority favoring code-unit" view.
initial commit
editorial changes
FIX: some small fixes of the grammar