-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
Add ?Sized bounds to all the RangeBounds impls #61584
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
Closed
Kerollmops
wants to merge
1
commit into
rust-lang:master
from
Kerollmops:sized-relax-rangebound-impls
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't it technically a breaking change to expand the scope of a blanket impl? e.g. if someone had already implemented this for their own unsized
Foo
, that would now conflict.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. We usually categorize it as a so-called “minor” breaking change: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1105-api-evolution.html#minor-change-implementing-any-non-fundamental-trait
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's minor regarding dispatch ambiguity, but blanket impls cause actual conflicts.
https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1023-rebalancing-coherence.html
https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2451-re-rebalancing-coherence.html
That doesn't address expanding a blanket impl by relaxing constraints, as here, but I think the problem is the same and should be considered a major breaking change. It's particularly relevant that
Sized
is a fundamental trait, so coherence allows child crates to assume that their unsized type will never overlap with this currentSized
impl. (Hmm, well, maybe that's beside the point for a crate's local types.)The reason I said "technically" before was that I doubt anyone would actually have a conflicting impl in this specific case, but it's possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(Getting more and more off-topic, but: I think we should not have RFCs that say “RFC X is amended to…” without actually applying the change to the other file. More generally, “facts” that are out of date should not be found on https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/.)