@WG-prioritization/alerts issue #79658 has been requested for prioritization.
Doesn't seem to be a regression, but looks like P-high to me
is this even a bug? I think this would be a langauge change if it parsed
which means it doesn't make sense to prioritize
this looks like a feature request to me
though it is a really sensible one as tuple variants work and only ones with named fields don't
I guess it might be a lang change, but is it an intentional lang decision that it's this way, or was it something that just wasn't caught during implementation?
I'm going to nominate for T-lang T-compiler
Note that rylev self-assigned this issue
It's intended in the sense that qualified paths
<Foo as Bar>::Bazare so useless in
- struct expression,
- struct pattern, and
- tuple struct pattern
contexts that nobody ever bothered implementing them.
Name resolution and type checking support for associated items in these positions was implemented in late 2016 (#37035), starting from that point the surface syntax for qualified paths could be added at any point.
I guess they can be supported now for consistency.
I don't know enough about FQS (I still haven't found a use for it) to fully understand what they're saying, but it seems like they think it's fine to support this. Probably should still wait for the rest of the team to talk about it though.
Since it has been nominated to be discussed during T-compiler tomorrow's meeting, I'd suspend assigning a priority, then let's see
(apiraino removed I-nominated on suggestion from spastorino)
Probably yes a
P-medium at this point sounds ok. It also looks to be taken care of by Ryan Levick
well ... perfect timing ... the PR just appeared :D
Issue #79658's prioritization request has been removed.