Merge pull request #39 from SandaruKasa/master

Fix missing link to "must-move types" in the latest post

content/blog/2024-04-23-dynsized-unsized.markdown

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ The `?` is meant to signal that a bound like `?Sized` actually works in **revers
 
 The `?` notation also scales to other default traits. Although we’ve been reluctant to exercise this ability, we wanted to leave room to add a new default bound. This power will be needed if we ever adopt [“must move” types][][^mm] or add a bound like `?Leak` to signal a value that cannot be leaked.
 
-[“must move” types]: XXX
+[“must move” types]: {{< ref "2023-03-16-must-move-types.markdown" >}}
 
 [^mm]: I still think [“must move” types][] are a good idea — but that’s a topic for another post.
 
@@ -193,4 +193,4 @@ There is a definite trade-off here. Distinct syntax help avoid potential confusi
 
 Over time, I’ve started to believe that it’s generally better to make things feel similar, letting people push off the time at which they have to learn a new concept. In this case, this lessens my fears around the idea that `Unsized` and `DynSized` traits would be confusing because they behave differently than other traits. In this particular case, I also feel that `?Sized` doesn't "scale well" to default bounds where you want to pick from one of many options, so it's kind of the worst of both worlds -- distinct syntax that shouts at you but which *also* fails to add clarity.
 
-Ultimately, though, I’m not wedded to this idea, but I am interested in kicking off a discussion of how we can unblock [extern types][et]. I think by now we've no doubt covered the space pretty well and we should pick a direction and go for it (or else just give up on [extern types][et]).
+Ultimately, though, I’m not wedded to this idea, but I am interested in kicking off a discussion of how we can unblock [extern types][et]. I think by now we've no doubt covered the space pretty well and we should pick a direction and go for it (or else just give up on [extern types][et]).