Incoming breakage: Remove unnecessary ?Sized bound
#1
Conversation
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hello there 👋, I'm a member of the Rust compiler team.
?Sizedbounds in associated type bounds don't have any effect. The boundDeref<Target: ?Sized>can simply be replaced withDerefwithout any change in semantics (Targetis already maybe-sized since it's defined liketype Target: ?Sized;in the std library; writingDerefdoesn't implicitly add aSizedrequirement, nor does writingDeref<Target:>(sic!)).It's a bug in the current version of the Rust compiler that writing
TraitRef<AssocTy: ?Sized>is allowed, it should've been forbidden all along. See also rust-lang/rust#135229. The compiler bug is about to be fixed (rust-lang/rust#135331) and these relaxed bounds will soon become a hard error in this position! I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience!This future breakage was found with the help of crater (see the build log).