Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tracking issue for existential types (RFC 2071) #44685

Closed
withoutboats opened this issue Sep 18, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Tracking issue for existential types (RFC 2071) #44685

withoutboats opened this issue Sep 18, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@withoutboats
Copy link
Contributor

@withoutboats withoutboats commented Sep 18, 2017

This is the tracking issue for existential types, a part of rust-lang/rfcs#2071

Blocking stabilization:

  • Implement
  • Document
  • Decide final syntax
@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

@nikomatsakis nikomatsakis commented Oct 21, 2017

I am closing this as a duplicate of #34511

@Tyler-Hardin
Copy link

@Tyler-Hardin Tyler-Hardin commented Oct 31, 2017

I don't see a mention of anything like this in the referenced duplicate. It might be good to add it to the todo list there if this is going to be closed as a dup. (I would do it myself, but I barely grasp the RFC, and even then only in the specific context in which it would be useful to me.)

@Ekleog
Copy link

@Ekleog Ekleog commented May 13, 2018

@aturon This tracking issue having been closed in favor of #34511, would it be possible to update the checklist up there with tracking information for this feature, so that it's easy to figure out whether this part of rust-lang/rfcs#2071 has been implemented, is still under debate, is pending stabilisation, etc.? :)

@jethrogb
Copy link
Contributor

@jethrogb jethrogb commented Feb 12, 2020

I think the relevant issue is #63063

@ibraheemdev ibraheemdev mentioned this issue Jan 3, 2021
0 of 11 tasks complete
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
5 participants