-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
second round of refactorings for universes #54858
Conversation
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
@@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ impl<'a, 'gcx, 'tcx> InferCtxt<'a, 'gcx, 'tcx> { | |||
where | |||
T : TypeFoldable<'tcx>, | |||
{ | |||
let new_universe = self.create_subuniverse(); | |||
let new_universe = self.create_superuniverse(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I prefer "superuniverse" to "subuniverse". Universes naturally form a tree, and the "subelement" relationship goes from a universe to its sub/superuniverse.
It seems like the use of "subuniverse" conflicts with methods like Maybe "extension" and "extended" is a better terminology? e.g.,
and so forth? (For that matter, |
2c8c2d9
to
e3d783e
Compare
Rebased and tidied. Went and tried the renaming I proposed. I wound up at a slightly different place, as you can see in the comment from the final commit: remove the sub/super terminology for universes Instead, we talk about:
|
Now I am thinking |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
e3d783e
to
19c7e55
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
19c7e55
to
bae8a5a
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit bae8a5ac3e5cbe85bade7f1313712fb8bc114a6d has been approved by |
seems to be broken?
in the rollup https://ci.appveyor.com/project/rust-lang/rust/builds/19415197/job/kex1uawo1pxeg0ml |
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #54747 (codegen_llvm: verify that inline assembly operands are scalars) - #54848 (Better Diagnostic for Trait Object Capture) - #54850 (Fix #54707 - parse_trait_item_ now handles interpolated blocks as function body decls) - #54858 (second round of refactorings for universes) - #54862 (Implement RFC 2539: cfg_attr with multiple attributes) - #54869 (Fix mobile docs) - #54870 (Stabilize tool lints) - #54893 (Fix internal compiler error on malformed match arm pattern.) - #54904 (Stabilize the `Option::replace` method) Failed merges: - #54909 ( Add chalk rules related to associated type defs) r? @ghost
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #54747 (codegen_llvm: verify that inline assembly operands are scalars) - #54848 (Better Diagnostic for Trait Object Capture) - #54850 (Fix #54707 - parse_trait_item_ now handles interpolated blocks as function body decls) - #54858 (second round of refactorings for universes) - #54862 (Implement RFC 2539: cfg_attr with multiple attributes) - #54869 (Fix mobile docs) - #54870 (Stabilize tool lints) - #54893 (Fix internal compiler error on malformed match arm pattern.) - #54904 (Stabilize the `Option::replace` method) Failed merges: - #54909 ( Add chalk rules related to associated type defs) r? @ghost
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #54969) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
bae8a5a
to
560d954
Compare
@bors r=scalexm |
📌 Commit 5be9513ce4a6e593f5c50eab972de94ee8f60dd1 has been approved by |
⌛ Testing commit 5be9513ce4a6e593f5c50eab972de94ee8f60dd1 with merge 0e86b363814cfd66862f6df73bec3e5f63115b7c... |
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
The only name was silly. U1 can contain everything from U0 *plus* more things.
Instead, we talk about: - creating the "next" universe - universes "extending" one another - and `u1.can_name(u2)`, meaning that `u1` contains all names from `u2`
5be9513
to
05f67ca
Compare
Whoops, I thought I had patched that problem. |
@bors r=scalexm |
📌 Commit 05f67ca has been approved by |
second round of refactorings for universes A second round of (what I believe to be) "no functional change" refactorings, taken from my universes branch. r? @scalexm
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
A second round of (what I believe to be) "no functional change" refactorings, taken from my universes branch.
r? @scalexm