Plumb inference obligations through selection (alternative) #33451
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Candidate assembly during selection should not affect the inference context.
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #33138) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
@soltanmm I was most of the way through reading the last one. I'll compare the two today and let you know what I think. |
|
Gonna rewrite this one rather than try to salvage it; it's easier that way. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Alternative implementation to #33301 that dumps inferred obligations into the
Vtable*variants as nested obligations.I feel like it should be okay to do this instead of plumbing the obligations all the way up separately. After all, whenever new information comes along there are new type variables so the cache never ends up holding onto invalid data even if inferred obligations are added in... right? Nothing is 'special' about obligations inferred from unification.
r? @nikomatsakis