Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This actually applies pretty generally to all the formatting traits, should they all get for Sized? as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could add Sized? to the other formatting traits in case someone wants to do impl Binary for [T] or something like that. I didn't see any use like that in the repo so I didn't add Sized? to the other formatting traits, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to do that.
@aturon thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd vote to go ahead and add Sized? to those traits as well -- seems like there's little harm. Otherwise, this PR looks good to me!
|
Thanks @japaric! |
|
Hm, does an unsized type implementing |
|
It should be ok with |
|
Nothing specific, just wanted to be sure our |
|
Added @aturon re-r? |
|
Looks good modulo the nits that @alexcrichton pointed out. |
|
Addressed @alexcrichton comments. I'm leaving the UFCS conversion for another PR since it requires the use of re-r? @aturon |
minor: Sync from downstream
r? @aturon
cc #16918