Skip to content

Conversation

nrc
Copy link
Member

@nrc nrc commented Nov 5, 2014

r?

(I realise this needs a rebase, but I will probably have to chop it up in order to land and I'd like to get r+ first so I can do that quicker)

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

warning Warning warning

  • These commits modify unsafe code. Please review it carefully!

@nrc
Copy link
Member Author

nrc commented Nov 5, 2014

Part of #18469

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm under the impression that this change won't be necessary once #18486 lands. Since [T, ..N] == [T, ..N] works up to N = 32. cc @nikomatsakis

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

seems correct

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

r=me, thanks @nick29581!

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2014
The forwards compatible parts of #18645, rebased. Converts implicit coercions from `[T, ..n]` to `&[T]` into explicit references.
Nick Cameron added 2 commits November 18, 2014 10:02
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 18, 2014
r?

(I realise this needs a rebase, but I will probably have to chop it up in order to land and I'd like to get r+ first so I can do that quicker)
@bors bors closed this Nov 18, 2014
lnicola pushed a commit to lnicola/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2024
fix: Non-exhaustive structs may be empty
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants