Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Allow transitive coercions #18602

Closed
nrc opened this issue Nov 4, 2014 · 4 comments
Closed

Allow transitive coercions #18602

nrc opened this issue Nov 4, 2014 · 4 comments
Labels
A-coercions Area: implicit and explicit `expr as Type` coercions C-feature-request Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@nrc
Copy link
Member

nrc commented Nov 4, 2014

See RFC 401.

Part of #18469
@nrc nrc mentioned this issue Nov 4, 2014
Closed
@nrc nrc changed the title Allow traistive coercions Allow transitive coercions Nov 4, 2014
@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

and here #18469

@steveklabnik steveklabnik added the A-DSTs Area: Dynamically-sized types (DSTs) label Jan 27, 2015
@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Triage: no change

@Boddlnagg Boddlnagg mentioned this issue Jun 6, 2016
Closed
@petrochenkov petrochenkov mentioned this issue Nov 1, 2016
Merged
@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added C-tracking-issue Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature. C-feature-request Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR. and removed C-tracking-issue Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature. labels Jul 22, 2017
@CodeSandwich CodeSandwich mentioned this issue Jun 21, 2019
Open
@jonas-schievink jonas-schievink added A-coercions Area: implicit and explicit `expr as Type` coercions T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. and removed A-DSTs Area: Dynamically-sized types (DSTs) labels Aug 5, 2019
@tamaroning tamaroning mentioned this issue Jul 3, 2022
Closed
@Enselic
Copy link
Member

Enselic commented Oct 15, 2023

Triage: I'm a bit confused. RFC 401 seems implemented since #18469 is closed. Does this issue track something ("transitive coercions") that didn't make it into RFC 401? If yes, then it seems like "transitive coercions" deserves its own RFC and that this issue can be closed due to lack of details? If no, then I think we can close this issue as obsolete?

It seems like regardless of if the answer is "yes" or "no", this issue should be closed. So let's close. If I am confused, of course feel free to re-open after clarifying the situation.

@Enselic Enselic closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Oct 15, 2023
@Enselic
Copy link
Member

Enselic commented Oct 15, 2023

This seems to be an example of something transitive coercions would allow BTW: #52075

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A-coercions Area: implicit and explicit `expr as Type` coercions C-feature-request Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@steveklabnik @Enselic @nrc @jonas-schievink @Mark-Simulacrum