diff --git a/text/0000-ok-wrapping.md b/text/0000-ok-wrapping.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..631734c8758
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/0000-ok-wrapping.md
@@ -0,0 +1,565 @@
+- Feature Name: ok_wrapping
+- Start Date: 2017-06-04
+- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+- Rust Issue: (leave this empty)
+
+[RFC 243]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0243-trait-based-exception-handling.md
+[RFC 1859]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1859-try-trait.md
+[RFC 1937]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1937-ques-in-main.md
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Add additional help for writing functions in an error handling mindset.
+Support a `?` on function definitions and `catch` blocks that automatically
+wraps the result in an `Ok`, `Some`, `Poll::Ready`, etc.  In particular,
+allow function authors to avoid the need for `Ok(())` at the end of
+functions returning `Result<(), E>`.
+
+(Note that this _ok wrapping_ only ever applies to the success case.  At no
+point would this allow a function to implicitly return `Err(e)`, `None`,
+`Poll::NotReady`, etc.)
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+The question mark operator ([RFC 243]) has made great strides in the
+ergonomics of error handling in Rust.  Having an explicit-but-short marker
+for fallible locations that propagates the error on failure allows function
+authors to operate in an error handling mindset, concentrating on the
+success path while acknowledging the failure path.
+
+There's still one place where this model breaks down, though: when
+generating the return value.
+
+Take this example from [RFC 1937]:
+
+```rust
+fn main() -> Result<(), Box<Error>> {
+    let argv = env::args();
+    let _ = argv.next();
+    let data_path = argv.next()?;
+    let city = argv.next()?;
+
+    let file = File::open(data_path)?;
+    let mut rdr = csv::Reader::from_reader(file);
+
+    for row in rdr.decode::<Row>() {
+        let row = row?;
+
+        if row.city == city {
+            println!("{}, {}: {:?}",
+                row.city, row.country, row.population?);
+        }
+    }
+    Ok(())
+}
+```
+
+And compare the `unwrap`-equivalent one might see without that RFC:
+
+```rust
+fn main() {
+    let argv = env::args();
+    let _ = argv.next();
+    let data_path = argv.next().unwrap();
+    let city = argv.next().unwrap();
+
+    let file = File::open(data_path).unwrap();
+    let mut rdr = csv::Reader::from_reader(file);
+
+    for row in rdr.decode::<Row>() {
+        let row = row.unwrap();
+
+        if row.city == city {
+            println!("{}, {}: {:?}",
+                row.city, row.country, row.population.unwrap());
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+Two of the differences are fundamental to error handling:
+
+1. The signature is different.
+2. The `.unwrap()`s have turned into `?`s.
+
+But then there's the ergonomically-unfortunate piece:
+
+3. An `Ok(())` showed up.
+
+This is especially true since it's just noise.  It was fine for "getting to
+the end of `main`" to mean success before, so it can be fine now.  Having
+this mean success is by no means unusual either.  `#[test]`s are also
+successful if they reach the end.  And the `?` operator only further
+emphasizes this, as many functions using it only error via propagation.
+
+In practice, `Ok(())` is so unergonomic that people go out of their way to
+avoid it.  The same RFC also contains this example:
+
+```rust
+fn main() -> Result<(), io::Error> {
+    let mut stdin = io::stdin();
+    let mut raw_stdout = io::stdout();
+    let mut stdout = raw_stdout.lock();
+    for line in stdin.lock().lines() {
+        stdout.write(line?.trim().as_bytes())?;
+        stdout.write(b"\n")?;
+    }
+    stdout.flush()
+}
+```
+
+That last line is different from how it would be anywhere else only to avoid
+typing `Ok(())`; otherwise it'd be the more-consistent `stdout.flush()?;`.
+
+This inconsistency has various suboptimal implications:
+
+* Not having the `?` obscures the property from [RFC 243] that the question
+  mark "lets the reader determine at a glance where an exception may or may
+  not be thrown".
+* For the writer, this blocks the "always put a `?` after every fallible
+  method call" muscle memory.
+* If a non-`io` error type is encountered (say a `ParseIntError`) and the
+  return type needs to be changed, the direct return doesn't have the error
+  conversion that `?` does, so will stop working.  (Note that, unlike the
+  earlier example, this doesn't use `Result<(), Box<Error>>`.)
+* If additional logic is added after it, the line will need to be touched
+  anyway, and the diff will be worse than it could be.
+* If flushing is needed in other places, it cannot just be copy-pasted.
+
+These same advantages to ok-wrapping occur with non-`()` values as well.
+For example, this RFC would allow the following:
+
+```rust
+fn checked_mul_add(x: i32, y: i32, z: i32)? -> Option<i32> {
+    x.checked_mul(y)?.checked_add(z)?
+}
+```
+
+That way the `checked_*` methods consistently have a `?`, and there's no
+need to put the whole thing in a distracting `Some()`.
+
+This consistency particularly helps when a previously-infallible method
+needs to start calling something fallible or when a fallible form of
+something that currently just panics is needed.
+
+As a simple example, the previous snippit is the checked equivalent of
+
+```rust
+fn mul_add(x: i32, y: i32, z: i32) -> i32 {
+    x.mul(y).add(z)
+}
+```
+
+The translation between the two is simple, and only involves touching
+things where failure points are introduced:
+
+1. Change the definition from `-> i32` to `? -> Option<i32>`
+2. Introduce fallible calls by changing `.foo(w)` to `.checked_foo(w)?`
+
+Ok-wrapping also avoids the explicit ["'unwrap' only to 'wrap' again"] that
+can happen when using custom error types.  Today the code ends up being
+
+["'unwrap' only to 'wrap' again"]: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/unified-errors-a-non-proliferation-treaty-and-extensible-types/5361
+
+```rust
+fn something(bytes: &[u8]) -> Result<Foo> {
+    Ok(Foo::parse(bytes)?)
+}
+```
+
+Where the outfix `Ok()` is unhelpful, and interrupts the normal
+left-to-right writing flow.
+
+This all also applies to `catch` blocks -- so much so that [RFC 243] in fact
+[requires] ok wrapping of the inner value, with an example not unlike
+`checked_mul_add` above:
+
+[requires]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0243-trait-based-exception-handling.md#catch-expressions
+
+```rust
+catch { foo()?.bar()?.baz()? }
+```
+
+This [was not implemented](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41414)
+out of a desire to keep function bodies and `catch` bodies in sync.
+
+With this RFC, the example would become
+
+```rust
+catch? { foo()?.bar()?.baz()? }
+```
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+(Continuing on from [A Shortcut for Propagating Errors: `?`])
+
+[A Shortcut for Propagating Errors: `?`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/second-edition/ch09-02-recoverable-errors-with-result.html#a-shortcut-for-propagating-errors-
+
+Listing 9-6 can also be simplified further by using _ok wrapping_:
+
+```rust
+use std::io;
+use std::io::Read;
+use std::fs::File;
+
+fn read_username_from_file()? -> Result<String, io::Error> {
+    let mut f = File::open("hello.txt")?;
+    let mut s = String::new();
+    f.read_to_string(&mut s)?;
+    s
+}
+```
+
+By adding the `?` to the definition, the function body opts into ok-wrapping.
+This allows the function to be written from an error handling mindset,
+concentrating on the success path and marking possible failure points with
+`?`.  Ok-wrapping will automatically wrap the value of the function body in
+`Ok`.  In this case, it means the function must return `String`, not a
+`Result`.  As such, `Err`s can only come through `?`.
+
+This is particularly helpful for functions that don't need to return anything
+in the success case:
+
+```rust
+use std::io;
+use std::io::Read;
+use std::fs::File;
+
+fn print_username_from_file()? -> Result<(), io::Error> {
+    let mut f = File::open("hello.txt")?;
+    let mut s = String::new();
+    f.read_to_string(&mut s)?;
+    println!("{}", s);
+    // not needed, thanks to ok wrapping: Ok(())
+}
+```
+
+This is analogous to the infallible case, where `-> ()` methods don't need to
+explicitly return the `()` value.
+
+Ok-wrapping can be used with any return type that implements `Try`:
+
+```rust
+fn get_two<T>(slice: &[T], i: usize, j: usize)? -> Option<(&T,&T)> {
+    (slice.get(i)?, slice.get(j)?)
+}
+```
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+## Grammar updates
+
+[Closure Types](https://doc.rust-lang.org/grammar.html#closure-types)
+
+```diff
+ closure_type := [ 'unsafe' ] [ '<' lifetime-list '>' ] '|' arg-list '|'
++                [ '?' ]
+                 [ ':' bound-list ] [ '->' type ]
+```
+
+Similarly for functions, an optional `?` before the `->`.
+
+And for `catch`, an optional `?` before the block.
+
+## Desugar
+
+Functions and closure that opt into ok-wrapping are rewritten as follows
+(using the same ["block break"] as in [RFC 243]):
+
+["block break"]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0243-trait-based-exception-handling.md#early-exit-from-any-block
+
+* The existing function `BODY` is wrapped into `Try::from_ok('a: { BODY })`
+* All syntactic `return EXP` expressions in the body are changed to `break 'a EXP`
+* `return`s from `?` desugaring are **not** changed
+
+`catch` blocks are simpler, as they don't capture `return`s, so they only
+need wrapping in `Try::from_ok`.
+
+(`Try::from_ok` was introduced in anticipation of this purpose in [RFC 1859],
+though that RFC does not use it itself.)
+
+Take this example:
+
+```rust
+fn read_username_or_anonymous_from_file()? -> Result<String, io::Error> {
+    let mut f = File::open("hello.txt")?;
+    let mut s = String::new();
+    f.read_to_string(&mut s)?;
+    if s.is_empty() { return String::from("anonymous"); }
+    s
+}
+```
+
+It shallowly desugars to
+
+```rust
+fn read_username_or_anonymous_from_file() -> Result<String, io::Error> {
+    Try::from_ok('a: {
+        let mut f = File::open("hello.txt")?;
+        let mut s = String::new();
+        f.read_to_string(&mut s)?;
+        if s.is_empty() { break 'a String::from("anonymous"); }
+        s
+    })
+}
+```
+
+Desugaring the `?`s as well gives
+
+```rust
+fn read_username_or_anonymous_from_file() -> Result<String, io::Error> {
+    Try::from_ok('a: {
+        let mut f =
+            match File::open("hello.txt").into_result() {
+                Ok(x) => x,
+                Err(e) => return Try::from_error(From::from(e)),
+            };
+        let mut s = String::new();
+        match f.read_to_string(&mut s).into_result() {
+            Ok(x) => x,
+            Err(e) => return Try::from_error(From::from(e)),
+        };
+        if s.is_empty() { break 'a String::from("anonymous"); }
+        s
+    })
+}
+```
+
+This shows the untouched `return`s in the `?` desugar.
+
+## Error messages
+
+With just the desugar above, this example
+
+```rust
+fn foo()? -> i32 { 4 }
+```
+
+Will give the error "the trait bound `i32: std::ops::Try` is not satisfied",
+but will likely point to the result of the function, not the return type.
+
+Instead, it should give an error pointing at the question mark with an
+error like "cannot use ok-wrapping in a function that returns `i32`",
+with a suggestion such as "consider changing the return type to
+`Result<i32, Box<Error>>`".
+
+Because ok-wrapping is explicitly requested, type mismatch errors will
+happen naturally in both directions:
+
+```rust
+fn always_five() -> Result<i32, !> { 5 } // Error: expected enum `std::result::Result`, found integral variable
+fn always_five()? -> Result<i32, !> { Ok(5) } // Error: expected i32, found enum `std::result::Result`
+```
+
+And the function author chooses explicitly how the type of its body
+should be inferred:
+
+```rust
+fn def1() -> Option<i32> { Default::default() } // gives None
+fn def2()? -> Option<i32> { Default::default() } // gives Some(0)
+```
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+The `?` appears to be part of the signature, but it's not.  A function like
+`fn foo()? -> Option<i32>` coerces to `fn()->Option<i32>`; there's no such
+thing as a `fn()?->Option<i32>`.  This is not the only thing that appears in
+function definitions that's not part of their type, however.  Patterns for
+parameters, particularly `mut`, are also part of the definition without
+affecting the signature.  And having the `?` there means it mirrors the
+position of a `?` used when calling the function: `let x: i32 = foo()?;`.
+
+Needing an explicit `?` on `main` to avoid `Ok(())` means one more thing
+to teach in order to use `?` in main.  The first non-`main` function a
+newcomer will write will likely be infallible, and thus will not have the
+`?`, adding another difference.  `main` is already special in a number of
+ways, however, and a definition like `fn main() -> Result<(), Box<Error>>`
+is complex enough even without ok-wrapping that the book may avoid it
+anyway for a first program.
+
+# Rationale and Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+The desugaring is chosen to enforce consistency inside a method.
+
+* Only one level of ok-wrapping will be applied
+
+```rust
+fn foo()? -> Option<Option<i32>> {
+    5 // Error: expected enum `std::option::Option`, found integral variable
+}
+```
+
+* All returns, implicit and explicit, must have the same type
+
+```rust
+fn checked_neg(x: i32)? -> Option<i32> {
+    if x == i32::min_value() { return None }
+    -x // Error: expected enum `std::option::Option`, found i32
+}
+```
+
+## Make this a general coercion
+
+This could instead be done as a "try coercion" from `T::Ok` to `T` where
+`T:Try`, adding it to the existing [coercion types].
+
+[coercion types]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/type-coercions.html#coercion-types
+
+Coercions have properties that are undesirable from this feature however:
+
+* Coercions are transitive, so this would enable things like `i32`
+  to `Result<Option<i32>, WhateverError>`.
+* Coercions apply in far more locations than are `?` boundaries.  Notably
+  function arguments are a coercion site, so adding a "try coercion" would
+  mean the ["into trick"] would happen on everything taking an `Option`.
+  It would also allow heterogeneous-appearing array literals
+  like `[4, Ok(4), 7, Err(())]`.
+
+["into trick"]: http://www.suspectsemantics.com/blog/2016/11/29/the-into-trick/
+
+## Omit the explicit marker on the functions/blocks
+
+It may be possible to allow the compiler to apply ok-wrapping
+automatically in situations where the code doesn't compile today.
+
+That would be simpler to use, but can have surprising behaviours.
+
+A function such as the following compiles, while being almost certainly not
+what was desired:
+
+```rust
+fn some_default<T: Default>() -> Option<T> { Default::default() } // Produces None, never using the bound
+```
+
+But could be accidentally written after a number of other functions in which
+the author relied upon the `T` -> `Option<T>` ok wrapping.
+
+There are also ordering complications since in certain examples it's
+unclear which of multiple possible blocks should have ok-wrapping
+applied.  Take this example:
+
+```rust
+let _: Option<i32> =
+    catch {
+       let x = catch { 4 };
+       println!("{:?}", x);
+    };
+```
+
+Both `4` and `Some(4)` are logically-consistent output, depending which
+catch block is chosen to do the wrapping. (Yes,
+`let _: i32 = do catch { 4 };` compiles today (2017-08-07) in nightly
+play. If that changes, the example still applies by adding another
+level of `Option<>`.)
+
+An equivalent example can also be produced using closures.
+
+## Don't touch `return`s
+
+The `catch` case only needs to wrap the value of the block; one could
+choose to also only wrap the value of the block in functions, not
+wrapping `return`ed values.
+
+Doing so, however, adds friction to the process of turning a `-> T` function
+into a `-> Result<T, E>` function.  With this RFC's proposed design, that
+change will always compile (though may result in different inference).
+Notably, [RFC 1937] would like to change the [generated main for doctests]
+to `-> Result<(), ErrorT>`, which will only be compatible if `return;`
+continues to work in such a method.
+
+[generated main for doctests]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1937-ques-in-main.md#changes-to-doctests
+
+## Handle only the `Ok(())` case
+
+`()` is already special, being the result of `else`-less `if` blocks,
+expression statements, and more.  It could be made more special to handle
+the particularly-egregious `Ok(())` problem, and punt on ok wrapping for
+other types.  This might be done by adding a coercion from `()` to
+`Try::from_ok(())`, as the coercion downsides are less-bad with a unit type.
+
+This would make the "usually `?` but sometimes not" inconsistency worse,
+however, as it'd only be fixed for `()`.
+
+## `-> T throws E` syntax
+
+This was [mentioned] as a future possibility in [RFC 243].  It proposes
+`-> T throws E` where this RFC has `? -> Result<T, E>`.
+
+[mentioned]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0243-trait-based-exception-handling.md#throw-and-throws
+
+Restricting this to `Result` would be a real shame when [RFC 1859] was
+just accepted to extend `?` to more types, `Option` particularly.  The
+two general options are 1) a new type variable with a `Try` bound, or
+2) `impl Try<Ok=T, Error=E>`.
+
+Unfortunately, neither of those are backwards compatible to use this
+with an existing `Result`-returning method.  A new variable cannot be
+inferred by use with `?`, nor with inherent methods.  `impl Try` could
+allow some combinators (`and` could be written on the existing trait)
+but not all (`map` needs ATC, which don't exist yet and isn't on the
+trait).  And even on new methods, these both lose the valuable
+distinction between `Result` and `Option`, in terms of `must_use` as
+well as things like `ok` vs `ok_or` inherent methods.
+
+## Do nothing
+
+Always an option.  This doesn't increase the power of the language, and
+some feel that `Ok(())` just isn't that bad, or even that it helps
+understanding the expression-orientated nature of Rust.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+* Bikeshedding on syntax
+
+## Semantics of `catch` blocks
+
+[RFC 243] mandates ok-wrapping for _all_ catch blocks; the current
+implementation [never]((https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41414))
+does ok-wrapping.  The hope in the issue was that both would automatically
+do it where needed, but designs for that ran into trouble, hence the
+`catch` vs `catch?` split.
+
+Should the semantics just stay those originally approved?  That seems best:
+
+* `catch { foo }` is useless without ok-wrapping
+* `catch { foo? }` is either better than `catch { Ok(foo?) }` (because error
+  conversion is desired), or can be simplified to just `foo`
+* `catch { foo? + 1 }` benefits from the wrapping
+* `catch { foo?.bar()? }` is better than `catch { foo?.bar() }` for the same
+  reasons as discussed in the motivation section
+
+# Future Possibilities
+
+## `throw` sugar
+
+Because this disallows having both implicit-`Ok` and explicit `return Err`
+in the same method, it may encourage a pattern like this:
+
+```rust
+struct IntMinError;
+fn checked_neg(x: i32)? -> Result<i32, IntMinError> {
+    if x == i32::min_value() { Err(IntMinError)? }
+    -x
+}
+```
+
+It may be nice to add a [`throw x`] sugar to avoid `Err(x)?`:
+
+```rust
+struct IntMinError;
+fn checked_neg(x: i32)? -> Result<i32, IntMinError> {
+    if x == i32::min_value() { throw IntMinError }
+    -x
+}
+```
+
+But as in [RFC 243], it can be left for the future.
+
+[`throw x`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0243-trait-based-exception-handling.md#throw-and-throws