Skip to content

found the blog posts on Box<!> etc #76

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

Merged
MusicalNinjaDad merged 1 commit into from
Apr 15, 2026
Merged

found the blog posts on Box<!> etc #76

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
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions docs/hacking.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -515,10 +515,12 @@ This requires either:

I can understand the troubles in differentiating:

- `Box<!>`, `Vec<std::convert::Infallible>`, `Result<!,CustomZeroVariantEnum>` (all are verifiably impossible to construct) from
- `Box<!>`, `Vec<std::convert::Infallible>`, `Result<!,CustomZeroVariantEnum>` (all are verifiably impossible to construct in purely safe code) from
- `Option<!>` (can be `None`)!

This is something that would be a valuable, and non-trivial, improvement to the compiler to improve ergonomics as more people begin to use `Try` and therefore `!`
This is something that would be a valuable, and non-trivial[^1], improvement to the compiler to improve ergonomics as more people begin to use `Try` and therefore `!`

[^1]: See the blog post at the start of [this discussion](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/blog-post-never-patterns-exhaustive-matching-and-uninhabited-types/8197) & RalfJ's later blog post [linked here](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/two-kinds-of-invariants-safety-and-validity/8264)

## Other Std inconsistencies & niggles

Expand Down
Loading