馃敩 Tracking issue for RFC 2089: Extended Implied bounds聽#44491
Description
This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Implied bounds" (rust-lang/rfcs#2089).
Steps:
- Implement the RFC (cc @rust-lang/compiler -- can anyone write up mentoring instructions?)
- Adjust documentation (see instructions on forge)
- Stabilization PR (see instructions on forge)
Unresolved questions:
- Should we try to limit the range of implied bounds to be crate-local (or module-local, etc)?
- @nikomatsakis pointed here that implied bounds can interact badly with current inference rules.
kindlychung, Kerollmops, ExpHP, Limeth, LukasKalbertodt and 124 morealexreg, luojia65, ronlobo, jonhoo, tesuji and 41 moretesuji, bhgomes, GrayJack, e-ivkov, jcornaz and 16 moreXiangpengHao, GrayJack, edgarogh, Rageking8, astrolemonade and 3 more
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
Area: Implied bounds / inferred outlives-boundsArea: Implied bounds / inferred outlives-boundsBlocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented.Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented.Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCStatus: The implementation is incomplete.Status: The implementation is incomplete.Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.Relevant to the language teamRelevant to the language teamRelevant to the types team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.Relevant to the types team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.