In the discussion of pull request #11839, which aims to check the representability of structs and enums properly in typeck, @huonw pointed out that the semantics for types that directly contain zero-length vectors of themselves are potentially still undecided.
Consider for example (play):
struct Foo {
recur: [Foo; 0],
}
fn main() { }
If typeck allows enum Foo { A([Foo; 0]) } or
struct Bar { x: [Bar; 0] } then there is an infinite recursion + stack overflow in trans::adt::represent_type, so I will amend #11839 to disallow these cases and add a FIXME referencing this issue.
To me, it seems more consistent to allow any zero-length vector than to allow only some, but the only use case I can think of is that it may make some macros simpler to write.
In the discussion of pull request #11839, which aims to check the representability of structs and enums properly in
typeck, @huonw pointed out that the semantics for types that directly contain zero-length vectors of themselves are potentially still undecided.Consider for example (play):
If
typeckallowsenum Foo { A([Foo; 0]) }orstruct Bar { x: [Bar; 0] }then there is an infinite recursion + stack overflow intrans::adt::represent_type, so I will amend #11839 to disallow these cases and add a FIXME referencing this issue.To me, it seems more consistent to allow any zero-length vector than to allow only some, but the only use case I can think of is that it may make some macros simpler to write.