I didn't mean any offence when I called the change simple, though I do now see how it can be interpreted that way. When I call it simple it's because I am ignorant about programming language design changes, because, well, I don't really care. I'm not a PL designer. The change is simple to me because it: (a) seems arbitrary and easily changed, (b) solves a class of problem that I've never run into in other languages nor can ever really envision happening in a realistic scenario, and (c) if there are complex sets of tradeoffs involved in enabling this feature then they haven't been communicated well to the end-user at all. Especially with how bad the current state of affairs is, my calling the change simple should be a sign to the Rust team that if this really is the best possible decision for the language, they should put a clear statement in the compiler saying why. Because as it stands, from my end-user perspective, I still haven't seen a great reason why this shouldn't be implemented.