Skip to content

Replace rust-rfcs with rust-lang #30

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 6, 2019
Merged

Replace rust-rfcs with rust-lang #30

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion promotion.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Currently, non-`Copy` array initialization is treated as an implicit context.

The distinction between these two determines whether calls to arbitrary `const
fn`s (those without `#[rustc_promotable]`) are promotable (see below). See
[rust-rfcs/const-eval#19](https://github.com/rust-rfcs/const-eval/issues/19)
[rust-lang/const-eval#19](https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/issues/19)
for a thorough discussion of this. At present, this is the only difference
between implicit and explicit contexts. The requirements for promotion in an
implicit context are a superset of the ones in an explicit context.
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion rfcs/const-generic-const-fn-bounds.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ type theoretical perspective started out with a much purer scheme, but, when exp
constraints required, evolved to essentially the same scheme as this RFC. We thus feel confident
that this RFC is the minimal viable scheme for having bounds on generic parameters of const
functions. The discussion and evolution of the type theoretical scheme can be found
[here](https://github.com/rust-rfcs/const-eval/pull/8#issuecomment-452396020) and is only 12 posts
[here](https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/pull/8#issuecomment-452396020) and is only 12 posts
and a linked three page document long. It is left as an exercise to the reader to read the
discussion themselves.
A summary of the result of the discussion can be found at the bottom of [this blog post](https://varkor.github.io/blog/2019/01/11/const-types-traits-and-implementations-in-Rust.html)
Expand Down