On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 03:42:45PM -0800, Vadim wrote:
Since 'a FooT currently means the return value is a reference into
something that has lifetime 'a, 'a FooT feels like a natural extension
for saying the return value is a reference-like thing whose safety depends
on something that has
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Niko Matsakis n...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Regarding the marker types, they are somewhat awkward, and are not the
approach I originally favored. But they have some real advantages:
- Easily extensible as we add new requirements, unlike syntax.
- Easily documented.
Just wondering... Does anyone else feel that syntax around lifetimes and
type bounds is becoming very unwieldy? I am referring to this PR:
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/pull/11768. Is using dummy struct fields
for specifying custom type bounds on the struct itself really the best we
can do
