4 ms·

AFAIK many of those language features (specialization included) are blocked by the rewrite of the trait solver.

• TwentyPosts 2y ago
  Afaik specialisation (in full generality) would cause soundness issues, so it's not even just blocked by the trait solver, it's also blocked by figuring out a 'slimmed down' proposal that fixes those. And that's not even getting into the problem that it's a fairly controversial feature, since people are worried about terrible, hard to track specialisation trees. (See, inheritance.)
  • SkiFire13 2y ago
    > Afaik specialisation (in full generality) would cause soundness issues, so it's not even just blocked by the trait solver, it's also blocked by figuring out a 'slimmed down' proposal that fixes those. There is already a proposal for how to prevent unsound specializations [0], but it requires a lot of support from the trait solver, hence why I said it's blocked on it. [0]: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/02/09/maximally-minimal-specialization-always-applicable-impls/ https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/02/09/max...
• Maken 2y ago
  I think there is a bigger issue with specialization, and it's that nobody seems to agree in what the semantics should be. The orphan rules are clearly artificially limiting, but there is no formal description of a new set of rules to replace them, only proposals.
  • SkiFire13 2y ago
    Specialization would not replace orphan rules though.