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

Update resolution.md #1561

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 17, 2023
Merged

Update resolution.md #1561

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions src/traits/resolution.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ impl<T: Get> Get for Box<T> {
}
```

What happens when we invoke `get_it(&Box::new(1_u16))`, for example? In this
What happens when we invoke `get(&Box::new(1_u16))`, for example? In this
case, the `Self` type is `Box<u16>` – that unifies with both impls,
because the first applies to all types `T`, and the second to all
`Box<T>`. In order for this to be unambiguous, the compiler does a *winnowing*
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ because we know that each resolution will resolve to a particular impl.

One interesting twist has to do with nested obligations. In general, in codegen,
we only to figure out which candidate applies, we do not care about nested obligations,
as these are already assumed to be true. Nonetheless, we *do* currently do fulfill all of them.
as these are already assumed to be true. Nonetheless, we *do* currently fulfill all of them.
That is because it can sometimes inform the results of type inference.
That is, we do not have the full substitutions in terms of the type variables
of the impl available to us, so we must run trait selection to figure
Expand Down