-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.7k
Tracking Issue for RFC 213: Default Type Parameter Fallback #27336
Copy link
Copy link
Closed
Labels
B-RFC-approvedBlocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented.Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented.B-RFC-implementedBlocker: Approved by a merged RFC and implemented but not stabilized.Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC and implemented but not stabilized.B-unstableBlocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable.Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable.C-tracking-issueCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCF-default_type_parameter_fallback`#![feature(default_type_parameter_fallback)]``#![feature(default_type_parameter_fallback)]`T-langRelevant to the language teamRelevant to the language team
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
B-RFC-approvedBlocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented.Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented.B-RFC-implementedBlocker: Approved by a merged RFC and implemented but not stabilized.Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC and implemented but not stabilized.B-unstableBlocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable.Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable.C-tracking-issueCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCF-default_type_parameter_fallback`#![feature(default_type_parameter_fallback)]``#![feature(default_type_parameter_fallback)]`T-langRelevant to the language teamRelevant to the language team
Type
Fields
Give feedbackNo fields configured for issues without a type.
View all comments
2024-07-15: This feature (
default_type_parameter_fallback) is slated for removal, but that is currently blocked on too many crater regressions.EDIT: this issue has been stalled on disagreements about how to handle a nasty problem found during implementation. See the internals thread where this was detailed and discussed.
This is a tracking issue for RFC 213.
The initial implementation of this feature has landed.
cc @nikomatsakis