Consider parent aliases of rigid nested projections for outlives bounds #135008
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
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Dylan-DPC
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #145717) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
When we have some opaque like
type Foo = impl Bar<Out: 'static>(or an RPIT -- using a TAIT just gives us a nice name for the example), then when proving<Foo as Bar>::Out: 'static, consider the item bounds ofFooso we can prove that item bound.Similarly this should work for nested projections. If I have some
trait Foo { type Assoc: Bar<Out: 'static> }, then I should be able to prove that<<T as Foo>::Assoc as Bar>::Out: 'static.Since associated type bounds are now stable, this is something that users should be able to take advantage of.
Fixes #135006
r? @ghost