srrrse
srrrse
> I do agree that for most of the users, interacting with Cargo's CLI, these flags are irrelevant. However, this could be said about some other flags as well, like...
We discussed this & also the overarching issue a bit in the cargo meeting yesterday. The sort of overarching viewpoint was that it would be ideal to expose these kinds...
This was assigned to me to summarize why we didn't merge my PR which would have closed it #4787. We decided to punt on this feature because of the question...
@aturon & I talked a bit about this today. We talked about two basic different ways of encoding specialization: * In the first, we simply encode impls to proofs with...
Our plan for specialization as of now (or, my understanding of a conversation with @aturon): First, #39 will land giving us the overlap check. I'm going to modify this to,...
@nikomatsakis Yeah, @aturon and I talked about this a little bit. Our idea was to just not take this into account in the first pass and then fix it later....
> After all, the only time that the "specialization tree" matters is when you are projecting, right? Yes AFAIK
Note the first code block should be `pub trait Bar: Foo { }`
Can we assume all other impls are well formed when checking clauses generated by each impl?
@nikomatsakis ```rust trait Foo where T: Foo { } struct Bar; struct Baz; // impl A impl Foo for Bar { } // impl B impl Foo for Baz {...