История изменений

Исправление shkolnick-kun, 31.05.25 18:15 (текущая версия) :

Апдейт от топикстартера на GutHub-е после «починили».

Update from @pnkfelix :

While the test as written above is rejected by Rust today (with the error message for line 6 saying "in type &'static &'a (), reference has a longer lifetime than the data it references"), that is just an artifact of the original source code (with its explicit type signature) running up against one new WF-check.

The fundamental issue persists, since one can today write instead:

static UNIT: &'static &'static () = &&();

fn foo<'a, 'b, T>(_: &'a &'b (), v: &'b T) -> &'a T { v }

fn bad<'a, T>(x: &'a T) -> &'static T {
    let f: fn(_, &'a T) -> &'static T = foo;
    f(UNIT, x)
}


(and this way, still get the bad behaving fn bad, by just side-stepping one of the explicit type declarations.)

Что какбе говорит на о качестве кода в конпеляторе.

Что касается zurg, то они изволили мне клоуна поставить, но по существу ничего сказать нишмагли.

Интересно, что скажут LightDiver, unC0Rr, hateyoufeel, WatchCat, FishHook и прочие достойные представители «сообщества» )))

Исправление shkolnick-kun, 31.05.25 18:14:

Апдейт от топикстартера на GutHub-е после «починили».

Update from @pnkfelix :

While the test as written above is rejected by Rust today (with the error message for line 6 saying "in type &'static &'a (), reference has a longer lifetime than the data it references"), that is just an artifact of the original source code (with its explicit type signature) running up against one new WF-check.

The fundamental issue persists, since one can today write instead:

static UNIT: &'static &'static () = &&();

fn foo<'a, 'b, T>(_: &'a &'b (), v: &'b T) -> &'a T { v }

fn bad<'a, T>(x: &'a T) -> &'static T {
    let f: fn(_, &'a T) -> &'static T = foo;
    f(UNIT, x)
}


(and this way, still get the bad behaving fn bad, by just side-stepping one of the explicit type declarations.)

Что какбе говорит на о качестве кода в конпеляторе.

Что касается zurg, то они изволили поставит мне клоуна, но по существу ничего возразить нишмагли.

Интересно, что скажут LightDiver, unC0Rr, hateyoufeel, WatchCat, FishHook и прочие достойные представители «сообщества» )))

Исправление shkolnick-kun, 31.05.25 18:00:

Апдейт от топикстартера на GutHub-е после «починили».

Update from @pnkfelix :

While the test as written above is rejected by Rust today (with the error message for line 6 saying "in type &'static &'a (), reference has a longer lifetime than the data it references"), that is just an artifact of the original source code (with its explicit type signature) running up against one new WF-check.

The fundamental issue persists, since one can today write instead:

static UNIT: &'static &'static () = &&();

fn foo<'a, 'b, T>(_: &'a &'b (), v: &'b T) -> &'a T { v }

fn bad<'a, T>(x: &'a T) -> &'static T {
    let f: fn(_, &'a T) -> &'static T = foo;
    f(UNIT, x)
}


(and this way, still get the bad behaving fn bad, by just side-stepping one of the explicit type declarations.)

Что какбе говорит на о качестве кода в конпеляторе

Исходная версия shkolnick-kun, 31.05.25 17:59:

Апдейт от топикстартера на GutHub-е после «исправления».

Update from @pnkfelix :

While the test as written above is rejected by Rust today (with the error message for line 6 saying "in type &'static &'a (), reference has a longer lifetime than the data it references"), that is just an artifact of the original source code (with its explicit type signature) running up against one new WF-check.

The fundamental issue persists, since one can today write instead:

static UNIT: &'static &'static () = &&();

fn foo<'a, 'b, T>(_: &'a &'b (), v: &'b T) -> &'a T { v }

fn bad<'a, T>(x: &'a T) -> &'static T {
    let f: fn(_, &'a T) -> &'static T = foo;
    f(UNIT, x)
}


(and this way, still get the bad behaving fn bad, by just side-stepping one of the explicit type declarations.)