Document how self: Self
receiver types *actually* interact with object safety
#1455
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #1247
The description here on how this works is based purely on experiments on what the compiler does or does not accept (without unstable features), not on any inspection of the implementation in
rustc
. The term of “implicitly non-dispatchable functions” is one I just made up, as far as I’m aware, because it makes sense in this context. The motivation of future-compatibility is just my guess, too.I might want to read up some actual sources around relevant RFCs and/or PRs, for precise (intended) behavior, terminology, and motivation of the behavior of
self: Self
but notSelf: Sized
methods in traits.For review, especially if any of my “guesses” here are wrong, I’d thus also appreciate relevant links to relevant discussions to learn from.