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
Tracking Issue for RFC: Supertrait Item Shadowing #89151
Comments
@rust-lang/libs-api — this change is relevant to our ability to add things like |
For the Iterator/Itertools case it would be necessary to shadow based on the explicit import of Currently the RFC only concerns itself with traits being brought into scope via generics or trait objects, not via the prelude.
So the scope of this issue would have to be widened a bit. |
This is correct, the RFC explicitly only concerns itself with generics and trait objects. Similar concerns to what the RFC covers however also apply to the case where both supertrait and subtrait are |
Well, the std prelude (which is what causes #88967) isn't an explicit glob import either, it's fully implicit. |
Ah, I thought you were talking about a prelude in Itertools. |
I remember looking at the method resolution logic (excluding auto(de)ref) in the compiler a couple of years ago, and not liking what I've seen. Treating methods from generic parameter bounds as inherent (bad idea, IMO), treating I wish that area got some principled common vision (and corresponding bugfixing) before new features are added. |
This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Supertrait Item Shadowing" (rust-lang/rfcs#2845).
The feature gate for the issue is
#![feature(supertrait_item_shadowing)]
.About tracking issues
Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions.
A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature.
Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.
Steps
instructions?)
Unresolved Questions
Implementation history
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: