Should compiled data constructors be on the owned or borrowed type?

[sffc]

Should compiled data constructors be on the owned or borrowed type?

[sffc]

For the properties types, my Default solution won't work, because there is not a single constructor for those types. So we should probably come up with a general solution that doesn't depend on Default.

Here's another option

FooBorrowed::new() -> FooBorrowed<'static>
FooBorrowed::static_to_owned(self) -> Foo

Foo::try_new_unstable(...) -> Result<Foo>
Foo::as_borrowed(&self) -> FooBorrowed

[Manishearth]

I have previously been unhappy that the properties constructors only let you get static borrowed types, and would prefer that we have cheap ways to get owned types compatible with ones loaded from data structs. It's kinda annoying to have this split in types.

But it also seems to work well. It's unclear where we should be drawing the line.

[sffc]

Here's another question. In 2.0, should the types be named Foo and FooBorrowed, or should they be named FooOwned (or FooData) and Foo?