bjoernager/rust
bjoernager/rust
1
Fork 0
Code Activity

nit: update text to avoid "lattice specialization" term

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Niko Matsakis 2019-09-23 13:52:24 -04:00 • committed by Ariel Ben-Yehuda
parent b40a64da4f
commit da60c53fa7
1 changed files with 8 additions and 5 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

13
src/test/ui/traits/reservation-impls/reservation-impl-non-lattice-ok.rs
View file

@ -9,11 +9,12 @@
// with existing impls - at least the `impl<T> From<T> for T` impl. There are
// 2 ways we thought of for dealing with that conflict:
//
// 1. Using specialization and doing some handling for the overlap. The current
// thought is for something like "lattice specialization", which means providing
// an (higher-priority) impl for the intersection of every 2 conflicting impls
// that determines what happens in the intersection case. That's the first
// thing we thought about - see e.g.
// 1. Using specialization and doing some handling for the
// overlap. The current thought is to require ["intersection
// impls"][ii], specialization", which means providing an
// (higher-priority) impl for the intersection of every 2 conflicting
// impls that determines what happens in the intersection case. That's
// the first thing we thought about - see e.g.
// https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57012#issuecomment-452150775
//
// 2. The other way is to notice that `impl From<!> for T` is basically a
@ -26,6 +27,8 @@
// breaking backwards-compatibility in a fairly painful way. So if we want to
// go with a known approach, we should go with a "marker trait overlap"-style
// approach.
//
// [ii]: http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2016/09/24/intersection-impls/
#![feature(rustc_attrs, never_type)]