As side note. Maybe someone knows, why rust devs chose an already used name for language changes proposal? "RFC" was already taken and well-established and I simply refuse to accept that someone wasn't aware about Request For Comments - and if it was true and clash was created deliberately, then it was rude and arrogant.

Every, ...king time, when I read something like "RFC 2789 introduced a sparse HTTP protocol." my brain suffers from a short-circuit. BTW: RFC 2789 is a "Mail Monitoring MIB".

▲

adastra22 11 hours ago | parent [-]

There are many, many RFC collections. Including many that predate the IETF. Some even predate computers.

	▲	aniou 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But they were in different domains. Here, we have a strong clash because Rust is positioning itself as secure system and internet language and computer and internet standard are already defined by RFC-s. So, it may be not uncommon, when someone would tell about Rust mechanisms, defined by particular RFC in context of handling particular protocol, defined by... well... RFC too. But not by rust-one. Not so smart, when we realize, that one of aspects of secure and reliable system is elimination of ambiguities.