Skip to content

Tracking issue for negative impls #68318

Open
@nikomatsakis

Description

@nikomatsakis

Generalized negative impls were introduced in #68004. They were split out from "opt-in builtin traits" (#13231).

Work in progress

This issue was added in advance of #68004 landed so that I could reference it from within the code. It will be closed if we opt not to go this direction. A writeup of the general feature is available in this hackmd, but it will need to be turned into a proper RFC before this can truly advance.

Current plans

Unresolved questions to be addressed through design process

  • What should the WF requirements be? (Context)
  • Should we permit combining default + negative impls like default impl !Trait for Type { }? (Context)

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    A-trait-systemArea: Trait systemB-experimentalBlocker: In-tree experiment; RFC pending, not yet approved or unneeded (requires FCP to stabilize).B-unstableBlocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable.C-tracking-issueCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCF-negative_impls#![feature(negative_impls)]S-tracking-impl-incompleteStatus: The implementation is incomplete.S-tracking-needs-summaryStatus: It's hard to tell what's been done and what hasn't! Someone should do some investigation.T-langRelevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.needs-rfcThis change is large or controversial enough that it should have an RFC accepted before doing it.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions