gats

I don't think /ts/ ever refers to something specific in native English, it's usually plurals like it-s or from suffixes like bet-sy, gats-by, wat-son.

One case was, for example, about complex usage of generic associated types (GATs).

Rust's semantics are informally specified and constantly evolving (async, const generics, GATs).

For example, it will allow us to remove many of the current restrictions on GATs and to fix many long-standing unsound issues, like #25860.

For example, GATs didn't look particularly fun, exciting or sexy, but somehow after being thought about and developed for like 5-6 years eventually landed in stable.

Why do we need to worry about GATs in this context?

Finally, do you believe that the gradual improvements in Rust that pertain to the traits and GATs done in the last months are really going to unify the async ecosystem?

> We've added major features such as the try operator (?), const generics, generic associated types (GATs), and of course: async/.await.

Five when users have the client installed and work on some docs the same time as others it makes a new file and or the user that saves it last gats the changes saved..

> Rust's semantics are informally specified and constantly evolving (async, const generics, GATs) Many of those advancements are completely erased at the levels these tools are operating.

Yeah I've definitely seen that as well, get a couple of days in the studio to get a great drum sound then beg, borrow enough gear to get passable synth, gats etc.

I think ownership and especially lifetimes are a lot harder to reason about than the trait system tbh, even traits implementing traits, GATs, impl trait, and so on and so forth.