Niko Matsakis

I started exploring this in https://github.com/nikomatsakis/chalk-ndm/tree/recursive-coinductive -- just the first step I mentioned above. Could be a fine starting point for someone else.

@rustbot assign @Areredify

Yeah, the plan for chalk was to try and push a "more pure" approach, where we would consider it ambiguous, but return "guidance", and leave it up to the rust-analyzer...

I would definitely prefer to try this approach (guidance) before anything else, it's great that we can use rust-analyzer to see how well it works.

Ah, very cool. Is that available in some sort of re-usable crate?

OK, it took me some time to find, but I finally found a link to the meeting where we discussed this topic in some depth. It was the [meeting on...

Here is the comment from my branch, just in case that file gets lost. The "syntactic equality" lowering converts Rust *semantic* type equality into *syntactic* type equality. ## Syntactic vs...

A few things have changed since I pursued my older [syntactic-equality](https://github.com/nikomatsakis/chalk-ndm/tree/syntactic-equality) branch: * We converted to a system where we count *binders* and not *bound variables*. This simplifies some of...

While reading this, I found myself wondering about [RFC 2027], which aims to tweak the rules around `dyn Trait` being "well-formed" a bit. Might be relevant. Have to go revisit...

@scalexm and I discussed RFC 2027 [on Zulip here](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/144729-wg-traits/topic/object.20safe.20for.20dispatch.20.2357545/near/163751974). We came to the conclusion ([roughly around here](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/144729-wg-traits/topic/object.20safe.20for.20dispatch.20.2357545/near/163755549)) that it should be compatible, but we have to be a bit careful...