Repository navigation
Change "mutable?" to something else ("const"?) and fix covariance/invariance #518
Description
AIUI the general consensus was that we should implement a mutable "slot" type. This is basically equivalent to an interior record with one mutable field. This allows us to remove the mutable? botch.
Activity
graydon commentedon Aug 25, 2011
Assigning to first release so that it gets cleaned up before anyone relies on it in current state.
pcwalton commentedon Aug 25, 2011
Actually I'm not sure about this; I can't figure out what the deref semantics need to be. I think
mutable?may be the best solution...pcwalton commentedon Aug 25, 2011
See issue #856. We should at least fix covariance/invariance for
mutable?.brson commentedon Oct 18, 2011
The variance of
mutable?is fixed by 0f0fa26brson commentedon Oct 21, 2011
With the variance issue fixed can we punt on mutable? for 0.1?
brson commentedon Nov 16, 2011
mutable? is now const
Auto merge of rust-lang#518 - binarycrusader:master, r=alexcrichton
Merge pull request rust-lang#518 from matthewjasper/update-clarification
Loop-level rematerialization (rust-lang#518)
Merge pull request rust-lang#518 from ankane/lgamma
Add totient computation (rust-lang#518)
Merge pull request rust-lang#518 from folkertdev/test-float-f16
Merge rust-lang#517 rust-lang#518
Tweak message shown for query fallback
Merge rust-lang#522
Merge pull request rust-lang#518 from RalfJung/readme