Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
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
Implement
#[must_not_suspend]
#88865Implement
#[must_not_suspend]
#88865Changes from 7 commits
2271376
67ee91e
74ea163
461a0f3
ee1d2ea
2af1ebf
110aecd
f1021bf
08e0266
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The complexity of this function seems ~okay to me, but I'm still wondering if the (discussed and dismissed in the RFC) marker trait (
Suspend
?) approach would work better. The attribute could impl!Suspend
for structs, add it as a supertrait for traits and then the one caller tocheck_must_not_suspend_ty
could make the InferCtxt add an obligation forSuspend
to exist.This would require some extra logic to make that obligation failure a lint instead of an error, so if we don't already have something like this, we should keep doing what we're doing here. Maybe just add the above paragraph as a comment for why we are implementing it this way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the choice basically "we decided against this in the RFC"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it was never discussed in the RFC except for an honorable mention here