stepping into NormalizesTo where-clauses may be productive#155388
Open
lcnr wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom
Open
stepping into NormalizesTo where-clauses may be productive#155388lcnr wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom
NormalizesTo where-clauses may be productive#155388lcnr wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom
Conversation
Collaborator
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
fixes rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#273
Whether stepping into a where-clause is productive depends not on whether we're proving a
NormalizesToorTraitgoal, but instead on how both the impl and the cycle rely on it.In the example in tests/ui/traits/next-solver/cycles/normalizes-to-is-not-productive-2.rs this is just a productive use given the way @Nadrieril and I are thinking about it right now.
We're changing such cycles to be ambiguous for now, so this does not commit us to anything
r? @BoxyUwU or @nikomatsakis