4 code results in rust-lang/rfcs
text/2008-non-exhaustive.md
Markdown
Showing the top three matches
Last indexed Jun 25, 2018
text/1105-api-evolution.md
Markdown
Showing the top three matches
Last indexed Jun 25, 2018
| 268 | the potential for "sealed" traits to alter this dynamic.) |
| 269 | |
| 270 | #### Minor change: adding a defaulted item. |
| 271 | |
| 272 | Adding a defaulted item is technically a breaking change: |
| … | |
| 740 | breaking downstream code. |
| 741 | |
| 742 | **Sealed traits** |
| 743 | |
| 744 | The ability to annotate a trait with some "sealed" marker, saying that no |
| 745 | external implementations are allowed, would be useful in certain cases where a |
text/1522-conservative-impl-trait.md
Markdown
Showing the top two matches
Last indexed Jun 25, 2018
| 265 | allows OIBITs to leak through, and allows specialization to "see" the full type |
| 266 | being returned. That is, `impl Trait` does not attempt to be a "tightly sealed" |
| 267 | abstraction boundary. The rationale for this design is a mixture of pragmatics |
| … | |
| 335 | In the [most recent RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1305) related to |
| 336 | this feature, a more "tightly sealed" abstraction mechanism was |
| 337 | proposed. However, part of the discussion on specialization centered on |
text/2145-type-privacy.md
Markdown
Showing the top match
Last indexed Jun 25, 2018