From: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:54:48 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: add forum link
X-Git-Url: https://git.ralfj.de/web.git/commitdiff_plain/181a80ca72ad8c7eea4004885816ebd7f2d59fd3?hp=752dffc6f3244cfb764cf16ec76fc1ac674ffeec

add forum link
---

diff --git a/ralf/_posts/2018-08-22-two-kinds-of-invariants.md b/ralf/_posts/2018-08-22-two-kinds-of-invariants.md
index e87202f..16fad75 100644
--- a/ralf/_posts/2018-08-22-two-kinds-of-invariants.md
+++ b/ralf/_posts/2018-08-22-two-kinds-of-invariants.md
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 ---
 title: "Two Kinds of Invariants"
 categories: internship rust
+forum: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/two-kinds-of-invariants/8264
 ---
 
 When talking about the Rust type system in the context of unsafe code, the discussion often revolves around *invariants*:
@@ -178,6 +179,6 @@ For unsafe code authors, the slogan summarizing this post is:
 I think we have enough experience writing unsafe code at this point that we can reasonably discuss which validity invariants make sense and which do not -- and I think that it is high time that we do so, because many unsafe code authors are wondering about these exact things all the time.
 
 The plan is to open issues in the [UCG RFCs repo](https://github.com/rust-rfcs/unsafe-code-guidelines/) soon-ish, one issue for each type family that we need to make decisions on wrt. validity.
-<!-- Meanwhile, if you have any comments or questions, feel free to join us in the forum! -->
+Meanwhile, if you have any comments or questions, feel free to join us in the [forum](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/two-kinds-of-invariants/8264)!
 
 #### Footnotes