-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fallout from Sound Generic Drop to be addressed later #22321
Comments
Triage: I'm not totally sure this metabug is useful; @pnkfelix what do you think?
|
@steveklabnik hmm my use of this as a metabug extends beyond just the list of bugs in the description. There are a couple other bugs that cc this one as a way of collecting them, such as #21114. Having said that, I probably should either update the description to point to the current set of bugs that are still open and relevant, or close this as you suggest. |
I think everything here is going to end up addressed by NLL or be better tracked by individual tickets. |
This is meant as a meta-bug for me to collect references to places where users complained about fallout from Sound Generic Drop (#21972) and its precursors (namely #21657 in particular).
It might be a places to pose ideas for ways to address complaints, but keeping in mind the distinction between language features versus tooling, I would prefer for the comments on this ticket to focus on things we can do without changing the language per se, and try to put language changes somewhere on the RFC repo. For example, ways to encode "this destructor for this type is pure" is an example of such a language feature.
(I do not know where something like "borrow scopes should not always be lexical" (#6393) falls in that categorization; that might be an example of something that would not require an RFC, but maybe it does at this point.)
Potential work items:
Vec<T>
,Box<T>
,Rc<T>
, etc, covariant with respect toT
. Discussed on issue new scoping rules for safe dtors may benefit from variance on type params #21198 (was not a strict requirement for landing new destructor semantics).methoditem" dropck: Ignore bounds for traits without any items #24805key terms: destruction scope, block suffix, unsafe_destructor
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: