diff --git a/text/0000-disjoins.md b/text/0000-disjoins.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..e5a4bba631f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/0000-disjoins.md
@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+- Rust Issue: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+
+This is a resurrection/expansion of [an older RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/8277).
+It also requires [the `!` RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1216) as
+a prerequisite.
+
+Rust supports both kinds of composite algebraic data type: product types
+(structs) and sum types (enums). Rust has anonymous structs (tuples) but no
+anonymous enums, leaving a gap in it's type system.
+
+                    named      anonymous
+                 ------------------------
+                 |           |          |
+        products |  structs  |  tuples  |
+                 |           |          |
+                 ------------------------
+                 |           |          |
+            sums |   enums   |    ??    |
+                 |           |          |
+                 ------------------------
+                 |           |          |
+    exponentials | functions | closures |
+                 |           |          |
+                 ------------------------
+
+This RFC proposes to add anonymous enums to Rust and suggests naming them
+disjoins (as in disjoint unions).
+
+```rust
+let foo: (char | i32 | i32) = (!|!|123);
+match foo {
+  (c|!|!) => println!("char in position zero: {:?}", c),
+  (!|i|!) => println!("i32 in position one: {}", i),
+  (!|!|i) => println!("i32 in position two: {}", i),
+};
+
+let foo: (char|) = ('a'|);
+match foo {
+  (c|)  => println!("char in position zero: {:?}", c),
+};
+
+let foo: ! = panic!("no value");
+match foo {
+};
+
+```
+
+The syntax is chosen to look like tuples, but with pipes instead of commas to
+signify OR instead of AND.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Disjoins are the natural extension of the anonymous empty enum type `!`.
+
+Disjoins fill an analogous role to tuples. They're useful where the programmer
+needs a single-use type who's usage will be localised to a small area of code.
+
+For example, consider this code:
+
+```rust
+fn some_function() -> Result<i32, io::Error> {
+  ...
+
+  fn inner_helper_function() -> Result<char, (io::Error | Utf8Error)> {
+    ...
+  }
+
+  match inner_helper_function() {
+    Ok(c)  => ...,
+    Err(e) => match e {
+      (io_err|!)  => return Err(io_err),
+      (!|u8_err)  => ...,
+    },
+  };
+  ...
+}
+```
+
+Here, defining a type `enum IoOrUtf8Error { ... }` would have been possible,
+but would have been overkill because it would only have been used in one place.
+The type would also had to have been defined somewhere outside of
+`some_function` which would have spread out the relevant code and made it less
+readable.
+
+Disjoins are also useful in situations where having unnamed variants is the
+natural choice. For example, with disjoins it would be possible to define a
+one-hole-context type operator.
+
+    ohc!(T, (i32, T, T)) ==> ((!, T, T) | (i32, (), T) | (i32, T, ()))
+
+Disjoins will become especially useful if Rust ever adds a way to define
+methods over generically-sized tuples. For example, it would also be possible
+to write a function that selects an item from a tuple.
+
+    match select((2i32, 'a', true)) {
+        (i|!|!) => println!("got an i32: {:?}", i),
+        (!|c|!) => println!("got a char: {:?}", c),
+        (!|!|b) => println!("got a bool: {:?}", b),
+    }
+
+Disjoins would also be necessary if we ever wanted a way to extract the
+representation of a type in the form of a type. Disjoins would be needed as the
+anonymous form of enums:
+
+    struct Foo { x: i32, y: char }
+    enum Bar { X(i32), Y(char) }
+
+    <Foo as Anonymous>::Anon == (i32, char)
+    <Bar as Anonumous>::Anon == (i32 | char)
+
+Like with tuples, disjoins should only be used where the meaning of the
+variants will be obvious. For things like argument/return types on public
+methods, named enums should be used instead.
+
+# Detailed design
+
+Disjoins have the exact same semantics as named enums and behave the same in
+terms of code generation, representation etc.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Adds complexity to the type system and compiler.
+
+# Alternatives
+
+* Do Nothing.
+* Some have suggested non-positional disjoint union types (ie. where (T | T) is
+  isomorphic to T). However these aren't enums, aren't algebraic, and would add
+  enormous complexity to Rust's type system compared to positional disjoint
+  unions.
+* Change the syntax? This might be necessary if the suggested syntax turns out
+  to be ambiguous (see: Unresolved Questions). The `!` in disjoin expressions
+  and patterns could be changed to another character although `!` already
+  has connotations of "no value". Also the suggested syntax seems unpopular.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+Is the suggested syntax unambiguous? The '|' character is already used for
+closures, bitwise OR and disjunctive match patterns. The '!' character is used
+for the not-operator and negative trait bounds. I can't see any of these being
+a problem but I'm not sure.
+