Thanks @Centril for helping correct this process mistake! Since the implementation PR was already merged, I'm going to go ahead and kick off full review/FCP:

@rfcbot fcp merge

Team member @aturon has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

• @aturon
• @cramertj
• @eddyb
• @joshtriplett
• @nikomatsakis
• @nrc
• @pnkfelix
• @scottmcm
• @withoutboats

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@rfcbot reviewed

Since this has sortof already happened, I don't have a problem with it.

I do think, however, that it could be worth trying to make a general keyword unreservation policy. Part of me thinks "well, why bother unreserving anything" since not having a particular identifier available is just not that big of a deal.

@scottmcm General keyword unreservation policy discussed in #2421 😁.

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

Huzzah! This RFC is hereby merged.

This was already implemented in rust-lang/rust#49699 and so there's no tracking issue.