Implement RFC 3323: restrictions #106074
Open
Implement RFC 3323: restrictions #106074
+1,975
−238
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
r? @eholk (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
T-bootstrap
10 tasks
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
Reassigning to T-compiler, as this doesn't need further T-lang review yet. |
joshtriplett
added
T-compiler
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Noratrieb
reviewed
Dec 23, 2022
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #106256) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
rust-cloud-vms
bot
force-pushed
the
restrictions
branch
from
a2b72b7
to
7b21778
Compare
rustbot
added
T-bootstrap
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rust-cloud-vms
bot
force-pushed
the
restrictions
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0f88945
to
c0c8d21
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
- Make diagnostics more translatable - Avoid ICE on potential future bug - Use `#![crate_type = lib]`
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #113777) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
estebank
reviewed
Jul 19, 2023
| @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | |||
| Visibility is restricted to a module which isn't an ancestor of the current | |||
| item. | |||
| Visibility or restriction is restricted to a module which isn't an ancestor of | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe
Suggested change
| Visibility or restriction is restricted to a module which isn't an ancestor of | |
| Visibility or restriction is limited to a module which isn't an ancestor of |
to avoid repetition?
|
I'll reassign to author(s) to rebase and address a few comments but tbh I'm not sure about who should have the ball right now. Feel free to request a review with @rustbot author |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
When it gets to actual landing it will be better to split this PR into separate PRs for individual sub-features, it's too large right now. |
|
Agree with @petrochenkov, one of the reasons I'm procrastinating reviewing this (sorry!) is that this PR adds a lot. Maybe an approach closer to what we are doing with the explicit tail calls experiment (a PR per level — one for parsing, one for HIR, ...; maybe a PR "per feature" would make more sense here, I'm not sure) would be a bit easier to manage. |
|
No worries on the delay — I know it's a large PR. I can definitely split it up into multiple PRs when I get the chance. That may be a little while, unfortunately, as I've got a few different things going on. |
|
For the record: feel free to follow the new nightly style policy and open a separate formatting PR against rustfmt once this has landed in the compiler. |
|
@jhpratt any updates on this? |
|
@Dylan-DPC Not at the moment. I have splitting it up on my personal backlog. |
|
@jhpratt any updates on this? It's just collecting conflicts at the moment :D |
|
r? compiler |
|
I can review this but I'd rather we split it as agreed above (not to seem repetitive, and obviously take your time). |
|
The update would be that I'm quite busy, unfortunately. Believe me when I say this is something that I still want to happen 😄 Between work, RustConf prep, and other open source things, this isn't happening in the next month. However, I hope to get around to it within the next few months. It'll likely be a series of PRs, each being an incremental step towards the full implementation that this PR is. |
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.
This PR implements RFC 3323, which proposed
implandmutrestrictions. Both are implemented here.The current state of the PR is insufficient to merge.mutrestrictions are implemented without any known bugs.implrestrictions, however, are not currently enforced on external traits — they are only enforced on same-crate traits. I do not know why this is the case, and would appreciate some help in narrowing down what needs to change to fix this. This is the only known issue with the implementation, and is why this PR is currently marked as a draft.Once the bug is fixed, I'll also need to clean up the commit history. The current history is due to having it implemented while the RFC was still in progress.CI will fail for a number of reasons. I still haveTODOin the code as opposed toFIXME(because it needs to be done before this gets merged). I haven't added the tracking issue yet. And the bug will also cause a few errors by itself.I am currently refactoring some code and cleaning up the commit history. After that is done, this PR will be ready to merge.cc #105077