diff options
| author | bors <bors@rust-lang.org> | 2019-05-25 01:20:07 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bors <bors@rust-lang.org> | 2019-05-25 01:20:07 +0000 |
| commit | 524580312039e4fa5ccf91e8f7093cd755bc1aad (patch) | |
| tree | d9e75790ba24c417af1011a1920584cde727ec0a /src/test/rustdoc-ui/coverage/basic.rs | |
| parent | dec4c5201f88efbc3020b04ba96a5ee2c3b6cfcd (diff) | |
| parent | 123a456a4f6b1ddc02cf9fe54b55d2af076da0f6 (diff) | |
| download | rust-524580312039e4fa5ccf91e8f7093cd755bc1aad.tar.gz rust-524580312039e4fa5ccf91e8f7093cd755bc1aad.zip | |
Auto merge of #60441 - vext01:try-to-kill-projection-params, r=oli-obk
Make place projections concrete. **I'm not sure if we want this. I'm raising the PR for discussion** Whilst doing some work on our Rust fork, I noticed the following: Once upon a time (commit 9bd35c07c26) there were two kinds of projection: one for places, and one for constants. It therefore made sense to share the `Projection` struct for both. Although the different use-cases used different concrete types, sharing was made possible by type-parameterisation of `Projection`. Since then, however, the usage of projections in constants has disappeared, meaning that (forgetting lifetimes for a moment) the parameterised type is only every instantiated under one guise. So it may as well be a concrete type. Right? What do people think? This is entirely untested, although it does check. If we *don't* want this, then we should at least update the incorrect comment against `Projection`. Thanks
Diffstat (limited to 'src/test/rustdoc-ui/coverage/basic.rs')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
