lcnr
lcnr
cc @rust-lang/lang the nomination is for > nominating for lang, to let them decide whether they mind delegating this to t-types. We simply reuse the vtable of the parent trait...
@rustbot ready
Given that this is a test case that caused a hang in the old impl, it may be useful to add it to the new one to make sure we...
I personally find the argument "why allow `fn foo(self)` for `?Sized` traits if that causes the trait to be unimplementable for any non-`Sized` types" compelling and my immediate reaction was...
> > `feature(unsized_fn_params)` should get stabilized at some point > > But it is marked as internal though, why? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126830 based on reasoning from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123894#issuecomment-2054043053. My perspective is that the...
> Hmm... So this just stays as a lint? Even as a lint this is highly undesirable if there'll ever be a future where `feature(unsized_fn_params)` is stable: ```rust // Imagine...
> Well this issue needs to be addressed in some way, even if not like this why? we can keep this somewhat suboptimal status quo which will end up being...
> Presumably because those traits can be implemented for things other than closures certainly 😁 function pointers and items also implement `FnX`. And on nightly, users can manually impl these...