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

impl PartialEq and PartialOrd with primitives #136

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Mar 2, 2020

Conversation

cuviper
Copy link
Member

@cuviper cuviper commented Feb 25, 2020

This rebases and extends #105 (cc @hansihe). As noted before, it may hurt type inference where callers use comparison operators that relied on only one possible impl before. We're on the way to 0.3 though, so even a relatively minor break like that is perfectly allowable.

@cuviper
Copy link
Member Author

cuviper commented Mar 2, 2020

bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Mar 2, 2020

Build succeeded

@bors bors bot merged commit 8785d16 into rust-num:master Mar 2, 2020
@hansihe
Copy link
Contributor

hansihe commented Mar 2, 2020

🎉

cuviper added a commit to cuviper/num-bigint that referenced this pull request May 9, 2020
This manually reverts the new implementations from pull request rust-num#136. As
noted in issue rust-num#150, the mere existence of those impls can have a bad
effect on type inference in other parts of a crate, even from afar. All
comparisons of primitives with an unknown type become ambiguous whether
that's meant to compare with itself or a bigint, even if `num-bigint` is
not directly in scope at all.

Since this can break unrelated code in surprising ways, I think it's not
wise for us to have these implementations. Maybe we can explore other
methods to compare with primitives in the future, though it won't be as
convenient as using the operators.
bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2020
151: Revert PartialEq and PartialOrd with primitives r=cuviper a=cuviper

This manually reverts the new implementations from pull request #136. As
noted in issue #150, the mere existence of those impls can have a bad
effect on type inference in other parts of a crate, even from afar. All
comparisons of primitives with an unknown type become ambiguous whether
that's meant to compare with itself or a bigint, even if `num-bigint` is
not directly in scope at all.

Since this can break unrelated code in surprising ways, I think it's not
wise for us to have these implementations. Maybe we can explore other
methods to compare with primitives in the future, though it won't be as
convenient as using the operators.

Co-authored-by: Josh Stone <cuviper@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants