I will review, I'd like to get more familiar with this code.

@nikomatsakis r? updated to fix coercion fn calls

It occurs to me that we should not in fact allow implicit coercions where don't allow the corresponding implicit derefs for unsafe pointers. E.g.,

    let x: *const S = &S;
    let y: *const T = x;

The second line here should be an error. I believe combining the two statements is OK:

    let y: *const T = &S;

Since we derefing a borrowed pointer, unsizing, then making an unsafe reference.

I'll remove the ability to do the bogus adjustments on Monday.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 01:39:48AM -0700, Nick Cameron wrote:

It occurs to me that we should not in fact allow implicit coercions where don't allow the corresponding implicit derefs for unsafe pointers. E.g.,

    let x: *const S = &S;
    let y: *const T = x;

The second line here should be an error. I believe combining the two statements is OK:

    let y: *const T = &S;

Since we derefing a borrowed pointer, unsizing, then making an unsafe reference.

I agree that we should be consistent, although I think we should
probably allow the adjustments in the case of *T. I think the bottom
line is that we need to agree upon the rules and write up a
"descriptive" RFC so that we are all on the same page. I'll take a
stab at that. Per our conversation at work week, we can eschew deep
conversions (for now, at least).

I'll remove the ability to do the bogus adjustments on Monday.

In a separate PR?

r+ modulo nits

Addressed reviewer comments