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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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