Skip to content

Commit 2880173

Browse files
committed
Decided I care enough about the overloading+inference+coercion question
to actually encode my concern in the form of an unresolved question.
1 parent f6df740 commit 2880173

File tree

1 file changed

+12
-1
lines changed

1 file changed

+12
-1
lines changed

text/0000-box-and-in-for-stdlib.md

+12-1
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -205,7 +205,18 @@ tandem with types provided by the stdlib, such as `Box<T>`.
205205

206206
# Unresolved questions
207207

208-
None
208+
* Can the type-inference and coercion system of the compiler be
209+
enriched to the point where overloaded `box` and `in` are
210+
seamlessly usable? Or are type-ascriptions unavoidable when
211+
supporting overloading?
212+
213+
In particular, I am assuming here that some amount of current
214+
weakness cannot be blamed on any particular details of the
215+
sample desugaring.
216+
217+
(See [Appendix B] for example code showing weaknesses in
218+
`rustc` of today.)
219+
209220

210221
# Appendices
211222

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)