-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
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
Remove Self: Sized
from libsyntax::parse::lexer::Read::next_token()
function
#33506
Labels
E-easy
Call for participation: Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.
Comments
That must be a leftover from me trying to make |
I'm marking this as E-easy because all that needs to be done is to remove |
I would like to take this issue. |
Go ahead! Let us know what we can do to help you. You can reach out either here or on IRC ( |
tommyip
added a commit
to tommyip/rust
that referenced
this issue
May 4, 2017
The bound is not required for compiling but it prevents using `next_token()` from a trait object. Fixes rust-lang#33506.
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this issue
May 5, 2017
Remove use of `Self: Sized` from libsyntax The bound is not required for compiling but it prevents using `next_token()` from a trait object. Fixes rust-lang#33506.
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this issue
May 5, 2017
Remove use of `Self: Sized` from libsyntax The bound is not required for compiling but it prevents using `next_token()` from a trait object. Fixes rust-lang#33506.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
E-easy
Call for participation: Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.
Commit 6887202 added the
Self: Sized
bound to thenext_token
function in thelibsyntax::parse::lexer::Reader
trait (diff here).This bound doesn't seem necessary (it compiles fine without it), but it prevents using this method from a trait object.
Is there any reason for its addition? If not, could we remove it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: