Skip to content

Change "mutable?" to something else ("const"?) and fix covariance/invariance #518

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
Closed
pcwalton opened this issue Jun 18, 2011 · 6 comments
Closed

Change "mutable?" to something else ("const"?) and fix covariance/invariance #518

pcwalton opened this issue Jun 18, 2011 · 6 comments
Assignees
@brson
Labels
A-type-system Area: Type system C-cleanup Category: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup.
Milestone
0.1 first support...

Comments

@pcwalton
Copy link
Contributor

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.
@ghost ghost assigned pcwalton Aug 25, 2011
@graydon
Copy link
Contributor

graydon commented Aug 25, 2011

Assigning to first release so that it gets cleaned up before anyone relies on it in current state.

@pcwalton
Copy link
Contributor Author

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
Copy link
Contributor Author

See issue #856. We should at least fix covariance/invariance for mutable?.

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Oct 18, 2011

The variance of mutable? is fixed by 0f0fa26

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Oct 21, 2011

With the variance issue fixed can we punt on mutable? for 0.1?

@ghost ghost assigned brson Nov 16, 2011
@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Nov 16, 2011

mutable? is now const

@brson brson closed this as completed Nov 16, 2011
keeperofdakeys pushed a commit to keeperofdakeys/rust that referenced this issue Dec 12, 2017
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#518 - binarycrusader:master, r=alexcrichton
cfc0165 
Add missing MSG_PEEK definition for Solaris

Fixes rust-lang#517
pdietl pushed a commit to pdietl/rust that referenced this issue Apr 23, 2020
@Centril
Merge pull request rust-lang#518 from matthewjasper/update-clarification
ec8bb56 
Clarify what access struct updates do
ZuseZ4 pushed a commit to EnzymeAD/rust that referenced this issue Mar 7, 2023
@wsmoses
Loop-level rematerialization (rust-lang#518)
313c989 
* Continue to fix loop

* Move antimalloc

* Begin shadow loop remat

* Building

* Functioning

* Restore deref

* Partial fix

* Fixes

* Rewrite overwrite memory infrastructure

* Working

* Fix format

* Fix build bug

* Fix analysis bug

* cleanup
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@brson brson

Labels
A-type-system Area: Type system C-cleanup Category: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.1 first supported public release
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@graydon @brson @pcwalton