Added .pop() to Chan as a complete alternative to .succ() and .zero().#26
Added .pop() to Chan as a complete alternative to .succ() and .zero().#26ebfull wants to merge 1 commit intoMunksgaard:masterfrom
Conversation
|
One thing I have not tested is how far the compiler is willing to resolve this recursively, though I'm sure similar issues pop up anyway with highly recursive protocols. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This fixes a warning that will become a hard error in the next stable release.
|
I like this - IMO it's mostly an ergonomics thing, but it still adds value. 👍 |
|
Yeah, I like this too. One thing that might be a concern is if error messages get polluted with |
|
I understand this a little better now - EDIT: This sounds like a really silly question in hindsight... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How well are trait impls for tuples supported? We did this once and found out that it was a bit of an unstable feature - but that might have been at that time...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, it's available in stable. :) Might have been an issue before the major coherence changes earlier this year.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps it could be done with associated types like we're using for Send, Recv, etc.?
3 participants
.pop()will automatically bring the type upward from the "recursive" depth indicated byVar<N>, obviating the need for.succ().succ().succ().zero()or similar things.Closes #25