[Subsentient]

These issues cannot be fixed by merely updating the docs for a few items. (and frankly I don't contribute much to big FOSS projects because I've had bad experiences with big projects before)

This can only be fixed by A. Requiring that all syntax changes, no matter how small, are fully documented before they reach stable or even beta, and B. Eventual standardization, even if the reference implementation ends up being more cutting edge.

Rust devs also need to think more about how they're going to document a feature before they add it. Like for many of the implicit reborrows, they're done in non-obvious places and not done in others, with no pattern to where it's done and where it's not. That kind of implementation is extremely painful to document or standardize. Rust needs to think more in terms of rules for syntax, rather than instances of a particular shortcut. Rather than adding a standalone instance, you should edit the rules so that instance is covered.

[ben0x539]

Are you interested in standardization for its own sake or as a forcing function for exhaustive documentation?

[Subsentient]

Both, though mostly documentation. To me, a standard is the documentation. The fact I have to read rustc source to find syntax is frankly an abomination. A standard defines syntax and grammar in ways that a html reference page never does. It doesn't matter as much for "fluffy" languages like Python or Lua, but it's very important for a systems language.

I also want standardization to make writing alternative conforming compilers easier. I strongly dislike the attitude of some Rust maintainers, and a standard is a useful tool to forcibly remove some level of control from their hands.