<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>dikaiosune</author><text>Not mentioned in the release, but in the extended release notes:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Soundness fixes to the interactions between associated types and lifetimes, specified in RFC 1214, now generate errors for code that violates the new rules. This is a significant change that is known to break existing code, so it has emitted warnings for the new error cases since 1.4 to give crate authors time to adapt.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rust&amp;#x2F;blob&amp;#x2F;stable&amp;#x2F;RELEASES.md#compatibility-notes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rust&amp;#x2F;blob&amp;#x2F;stable&amp;#x2F;RELEASES.md#co...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think this is a fantastic example of the even-handed approach in the compiler stability promises&amp;#x2F;plans, and it&amp;#x27;s great to see one of the first real tests of those promises go so well.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Announcing Rust 1.7</title><url>http://blog.rust-lang.org/2016/03/02/Rust-1.7.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>kibwen</author><text>As mentioned in the OP, Rust really hasn&amp;#x27;t added any language-level features since 1.0, but looking forward there were two major features whose RFCs were accepted this cycle: impl specialization (&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rfcs&amp;#x2F;pull&amp;#x2F;1210#issuecomment-187777838&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rfcs&amp;#x2F;pull&amp;#x2F;1210#issuecomment-187...&lt;/a&gt;) and the `?` operator (&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rfcs&amp;#x2F;pull&amp;#x2F;243#issuecomment-180504407&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rfcs&amp;#x2F;pull&amp;#x2F;243#issuecomment-1805...&lt;/a&gt;). The former will keep code from having to pay a de facto performance penalty for being generic (preliminary implementation at &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rust&amp;#x2F;pull&amp;#x2F;30652&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rust&amp;#x2F;pull&amp;#x2F;30652&lt;/a&gt;), and the latter is purely an ergonomic change to make our `Result`-based error handling more lightweight (preliminary implementation at &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rust&amp;#x2F;pull&amp;#x2F;31954&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;rust-lang&amp;#x2F;rust&amp;#x2F;pull&amp;#x2F;31954&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m personally hoping the latter one manages to get into the beta release for the next cycle, so that I can use `?` rather than `try!()` for my Rust tutorial at OSCON this year. :)</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Announcing Rust 1.7</title><url>http://blog.rust-lang.org/2016/03/02/Rust-1.7.html</url></story>